Biggest choke job, 1969 Cubs or 2006 Sox?

by DrCrawdad on Sep 19, 2006 7:56 PM CDT Comment 33 comments

The Tribunes own Jimmy Greenfield says it's the 2006 Sox.

In an article entitled, "Choke on this, Sox fans
2006 White Sox on target to replace 1969 Cubs as Chicago's biggest chokers," Jimmy Greenfield claims that the '06 Sox are bigger chokes than the 1969 Cubs.

IMHO the '06 Sox certainly flopped and failed to live up to the high expectations as defending World Champions. But they did not choke. If the Sox had in fact lost out on the playoffs last year then I would have agreed that that was a monumental choke.

The Sox have not been in first place since June, IIRC.

On August 15, 1969 the Cubs were 74-44, the Mets 62-51 (Mets 9.5 GB).

The '69 Cubs had 3 Hall of Famers plus Santo, a fourth Hall of Famer in the minds of many. The '06 Sox, none at this point.

I can understand why Cub fans such as Greenfield are eager to shed the "choker" label but claiming that the '06 Sox are bigger chokers than the 1969 Cubs is silly, at best.

Frankly too, I don't think it's necessary to rank everything, such as "chokes."

A friend of mine said this in response to Greenfield's article:

"Hey, Jimmy Greenfield, ** you.

"pops in 2005 World Series DVD box set

"Choke on that, ***."

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | Comment 33 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Wow...

...That's ridiculous. Some people are just insane.

by FukudomeAtLarge on Sep 19, 2006 7:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Eagerness ahead of evidence...

The only fact that Greenfield used in his article were the records in the 2nd half of the season. The Sox record is worse but that overlooks the facts I mentioned AND that the Sox have been playing poorly the entire second half. They've not flamed out in the last part of the season.

If you're going to rank Sox "chokes" then the often overlooked "choke" is the 1967 Sox.

by DrCrawdad on Sep 19, 2006 8:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Now this was a choke!!

1995 California Angels

by Santos Sorrow on Sep 19, 2006 8:48 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I would love to say that

but it's just not the case. The White Sox didn't choke, they just didn't live up to expectations.

by NO100 on Sep 19, 2006 8:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That is Nuts

Much as I am enjoying the Sox swooning of late
there is no comparison. I think it was the 64 Phillies who
had the most epic collapse but Sox are not really
"choking" just being outplayed by a much better team

Doesn't mean I am not enoying it
Glad I am too young to remember 69 (well I would
have been old enough to remember but I was not
a fan yet)

I HATE NED COLLETTI

by jessica on Sep 19, 2006 8:26 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

The only thing I can think of...

...is that they have a better roster on paper than they did in 2005, and have underperformed. Inconsistent starting pitching has doomed them, whereas last year the rotation had a collective career year. But it's not choking, since the Tigers have been in first for so long.

by Perkins on Sep 19, 2006 8:28 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Not just one reason...

The starters have not been as good as last year but the bullpen has been poor and the hitting has been very inconsistent. A collective flop.

God, I wish the Sox were in the NL Central...

by DrCrawdad on Sep 19, 2006 8:32 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, they aren't choking

I said time after time last season, when the Sox were playing so well that their pitching staff was playing way over their heads, and it would eventually catch up to them. It seems now I've been proved right, but admittedly a year after I thought it was going to happen.

Mark Buehrle IS a very good pitcher, and Freddy Garcia has always been pretty solid. But there was nothing in the history of Contreras, Garland, Old-man Hernandez, Politte, Cotts, Hermanson etc. that said they were anything other than mediochre. Frankly, I am jealous, because the Cubs never seem to be able to catch lightening in a bottle with such a large group of mediochrity. This year, those pitchers are either injured, or playing closer to expectations: the Sox are a good team, but with only average pitching--missing the playoffs is far from a choke-job. Plus, KW has finally shown himself to be a mere mortal, with the Thome trade eventually turning out to be a minor blunder, what with Thomas's similar production, and the virtual black hole out of the center field position on offense.

Next season, the Sox will really need to put a lot of effort into augmenting that pitching staff, because the offense shouldn't be quite this good. This was probably Dye's career year, and Thome isn't getting any younger. Lucky for you guys, you actually have legitimate position prospects...don't you feel lucky?

by Thelonious on Sep 20, 2006 5:34 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Team

Actually, Garland has been one of the best pitchers in baseball the 2005-2006. While Garland started horribly this season he's been fantastic the last 3 or 4 months.

The starter for the Sox who has struggled this season is Buehrle. I'd say that this season is the abberation for him, so far...

El Duque did great in the post-season but terrible as a 5th starter, he even lost his spot in the rotation.

Cotts and Politte certainly had career years. Contreras had the best season of his career but I'd say that he finally pitched to the expectations for him.

And while the Sox have failed let's not overlook the fact that they'll probably finish with a better record than the division winning '03 Cubs. The biggest obstacle for the '06 was overcoming two hotter teams, Detroit & Minn.

by DrCrawdad on Sep 20, 2006 7:44 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jon Garland

"Actually, Garland has been one of the best pitchers in baseball the 2005-2006."

Yeah, I don't know about that. He's been solid at times, but he's also benefitted from great run support. And my point is still valid: I was saying that about 3 of the 5 pitchers in the Sox rotation in 2005 had no previous proof that they were anything other than mediochre (even Buehrle would have been a number 2 on some of the better staffs with his numbers prior to 2005). Garland had a career high of, what, 12 wins or so before 2005. It is true, though, that he is only 27.

Hey, if I seem petty, well, call it jealousy.

"And while the Sox have failed let's not overlook the fact that they'll probably finish with a better record than the division winning '03 Cubs"

Like I said: they haven't choked. They are a disappointment; that is still a big difference from the 1969 Cubs (or 2003 for that matter etc.). As much as I've loved watching them fail (and you have no idea), I do realize that if the 2003 Cubs were in this year's AL Central, they probably wouldn't have made the playoffs either.

by Thelonious on Sep 20, 2006 11:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Linkage...

http://tinyurl.com/s6ggl

by DrCrawdad on Sep 19, 2006 8:30 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

wow,

there wasn't much substance to that article. He doesn't even mention how great the Mets record was in the last couple months in 1969, which is the other half of the equation. still, it's a silly comparison and frankly juvenile just to stir up some people like the heinie bird does at the sun times.

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Sep 19, 2006 10:35 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

I read that article and thought, "Ok, where is the rest?"

The '69 Mets went on a tear, and so have the Twins. The Twins are now only 1.5 games behind the Tigers. Amazing!

I have nothing but respect and admiration for the Twins. One helluva an organization!

by DrCrawdad on Sep 19, 2006 10:53 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I love the Twins

they have been my AL team dating back to the 70's. a history of cheap-ass owners but still a great organization. How can the sox be the chokers when the tigers are the team that had the big lead all year? besides, the wild card situation makes it an apples/oranges comparison, and the sox still have a world series title to cherish.

by cashcowsquirtingsourmilk on Sep 19, 2006 11:15 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

MacPhail

has been riding the Twins wave, not to mention daddy's and grandpa's reputation, for his entire career.

Maybe it's time to step back and assess MacPhail for what he really is, a man fortunate to be at the right place at the right time (Minnesota-late '80's) and an utter failure in every facet in his 12+ years with the Cubs.

by Santos Sorrow on Sep 20, 2006 7:37 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

McPhail

I am going to defend McPhail as a Cub exec. But I am not sure how you can simply label a man who was the GM for 2 WS championships in MN as simply "being in teh right place at the right time." I say, give credit where credit is due, and blame where blame is due.

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Sep 20, 2006 7:55 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

oops,

I meant to say I am NOT going to defend McPhail as a Cub exec...

Eamus Ursuli!

by WGNstatic on Sep 20, 2006 7:56 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

There's a difference

The '69 Cubs choked -- at least, as far as I can tell (I wasn't around thatt far back), but the White Sox haven't live dup to expectations, which is quite a different thing.

Hm, what other teams do I know that haven't lived up to expectations, and in a much more spectacularly awful fashion?

AC036198

by gjdow on Sep 19, 2006 9:18 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

About the White Sox...

... when was the last time they led the Wild Card race? I know they haven't been in first place since June, but I think for quite a while they not only led the wild card race, but by quite a large margin. Anyone know?

by Al on Sep 20, 2006 4:15 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Last lead in WC:

September 3

Largest lead: 7 games on 7/6. They followed up with losing 2 of 3 to Boston, a 3 game sweep by NYY, losing 2 of 3 to Detroit and Texas and 3 straight to Minnesota.

by bison on Sep 20, 2006 3:13 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Well...

... that's a minor choke.

Interestingly, if the White Sox win tonight and the Twins win, the White Sox would no longer be chasing the Twins -- they'd be chasing the Tigers, who they don't play again.

by Al on Sep 20, 2006 5:20 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I haven't read any of the previous posts

but imo, the Sox in 2006 were EXPECTED to do more. The team that won the World Series in 2005 only improved with the off season acquisitions of Rob Mackowiak, Jim Thome and Javier Vazquez, yet have fallen to third place in their own division. The CUBS are NEVER expected to win!

I honestly don't want to hear another WORD about Barry Zito in a CUBS' uniform in 2007!!!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by TheBeerBaron on Sep 20, 2006 8:17 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

2004 Cubs

The 2004 Cubs were widely predicted to be World Series contenders, even winners. The team was better, with the addition of Greg Maddux to the rotation, Derrek Lee and Michael Barrett in the lineup, Todd Walker at 2B, and LaTroy Hawkins in the bullpen.

And then they couldn't even win the wild card.

AC036198

by gjdow on Sep 20, 2006 8:33 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I still have...

...the 2004 SI Baseball Preview issue, the one with Kerry Wood on the cover. It says, "Hell Freezes over: the Cubs win the World Series." Hendry actually did his job going into that season, but the team just couldn't get it done. In a way, 2004 hurts even more than 2003, because it was supposed to happen and didn't.

by Perkins on Sep 20, 2006 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

RE:

In a way, 2004 hurts even more than 2003, because it was supposed to happen and didn't.

Boy, does it ever!

I honestly don't want to hear another WORD about Barry Zito in a CUBS' uniform in 2007!!!!!!!!!!!! WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!

by TheBeerBaron on Sep 20, 2006 9:41 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm looking at that on my wall right now...

.... :(

And that was BEFORE they traded for Nomar!

by FukudomeAtLarge on Sep 20, 2006 4:37 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

That IS Ridiculous

The Sox didn't build up a big lead then squander it away this year. They have a good team put together, and have been competitive right up until the end. Sure, it has to be disappointing for the fans, but things don't always work out they way did for the Sox in 2005 (taking nothing away from that team, they really did have a "lightning in a bottle" quality that's hard to replicate.)

Even though they likely will not make the post-season this year, I am still envious of Sox fans. I am pretty confident the Sox will put a team on the field next year that has a reasonable shot at winning it all, which is much more than I can say for my Cubs.

by SuperContext on Sep 20, 2006 9:46 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Actually, it looks like Detroit is choking

down the stretch. After their loss last night Minnesota can take the division lead for the first time all year.

Any comparison between the fat, dumb, and happy 2006 White Sox and the '69 Cubs is absurd.

Fundamentally, Greenfield is an idiot for suggesting this in the first place, but I guess they have to sell papers or something.

by JFCubFan on Sep 20, 2006 11:06 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs

That's absurd...

The 1969 Cubs, the 1965 Phillies....major gag jobs. No question about those two teams. The 2006 White Sox, a very good team just didn't have everything fall their way -- and their competition was better this year. Had they failed last year -- and until the middle of September 2005, it seemed possible. They were able to find themselves...and we know the result. The White Sox are positioned to compete for a while -- and, after winning a World Series, NOT returning the next year isn't a choke -- it's the norm. Anybody who thinks the ChiSox choked just isn't paying attention, or is a supreme front-runner ("What? Only ONE World Championship in TWO years?? Cancel my season tickets!!)

by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Sep 20, 2006 7:57 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Agreed

"...NOT returning the next year isn't a choke -- it's the norm..."What? Only ONE World Championship in TWO years?..."

Interestingly, there is a hateful, racist Cub troll who has frequented the Sox NG all season. The thing the anti-Semite has said over and over (and over and over) is that the Sox will be "one an out," as though repeating in MLB as champions happens all the time and those that don't are exposed as frauds.

As we know as Chicago baseball fans, winning a WS is difficult enough repeating (while surely desired) is not frequently obtained.

As I've said here, I respect and admire the Twins. But in the recent years they've been very good but they haven't even got to a WS, let alone win one. Now if they go to and win a WS this year and then fail to repeat, are they exposed as shams? Hardly.

After the Sox won last year I dearly hoped and thought it would be so cool if we had a Chicago World Series, just as we had one hundred years ago.

Too bad for us Chicago fans. Maybe next year...

by DrCrawdad on Sep 21, 2006 1:08 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cub troll

If you think I'm kidding about this Cub troll, here you go.

http://tinyurl.com/elzp9

"Of course it hasn't been reported! Your Jew owner made some calls and smoothed the whole ordeal over." - Cub troll, Jeffrey Alsip as posted in the White Sox NG

by DrCrawdad on Sep 21, 2006 1:15 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Oops

'64 Phillies, not 1965.

http://www.missioncreep.com/mw/phils64.htm

by Smooth Jazz Man San Diego on Sep 20, 2006 8:02 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

Whatta maroon...

That the problem with the blogosphere, ANYBODY with a keyboard can state their opinion...as stupid as it might be. Need an 'idiot' firewall, or something like it....

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Sep 21, 2006 10:26 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs