February 19, 200422 yr From Chicagosports.com: Recalling when the Sox had a 'sure thing' By Bob Vanderberg Tribune staff reporter February 18, 2004, 8:48 PM CST A Chicago baseball team, coming off a glorious but just-a-bit-shy-of-marvelous season, heads into new year with grand expectations. The fan base is energized as never before, the players are equally optimistic. Everything is positive. And then, on top of everything, to a starting rotation already brimming with brilliance, the team adds a pitcher closing in on his 300th victory and a plaque in Cooperstown. Where have we heard this one before? We turn back the clock a mere 20 years, to 1984, the season after the White Sox had (a) become the first Chicago baseball team to top 2 million in home attendance, (B) collected a major-league-high 99 victories and © won the AL West by a record 20 games. Alas, the Sox had lost their magic—or, more correctly, misplaced their bats—during the ALCS defeat at the hands of the Orioles, the eventual World Series champs. But they had shored up their weakest spot, the bullpen, by trading aging starter Jerry Koosman to the Phillies for reliever Ron Reed. Youngsters like Harold Baines, Ron Kittle, Scott Fletcher and Greg Walker were only going to get better. The flashy second baseman, Julio Cruz, acquired the previous June, was going to be around the entire season. And the veteran core of Carlton Fisk, Greg Luzinski and Tom Paciorek was primed for a repeat. But perhaps the biggest reason for optimism throughout Soxdom—a land much bigger then than it is today—was the starting pitching. The leader was Cy Young Award winner LaMarr Hoyt, 24-10 the season before and just 29. There was 28-year-old lefty Floyd Bannister, 16-10 with a 3.35 ERA in his first year with the Sox, who had made the former AL strikeout king the biggest free-agent signee of the previous off-season. (Imagine that.) Then there were the "kids"—25-year-olds Richard Dotson and Britt Burns. Dotson had gone 22-7 in '83, Burns 10-11. But Burns had won 15, 10 and 13 games the previous three years. Then, to this array of talent, the Sox added Tom Seaver, plucked from the New York Mets to make up for the Sox's loss of free-agent pitcher Dennis Lamp to the Blue Jays. Seaver, who had just turned 39, had won 273 games and still had plenty of good pitching left in his right arm. Not only that, there was all that pitching insight he would be able to pass along to Dotson and Burns and even Bannister and Hoyt. So the 1984 White Sox were a sure thing, right? Well, not exactly. The Sox started slowly—they were no-hit by Detroit's Jack Morris on the opening homestand—before rallying with a seven-game winning streak to reach the All-Star break at 44-40, good enough for first place in a weak division. Thereafter, they went 30-44 to finish fifth in a seven-team division whose champion, Kansas City, won 84 games. Seaver was blameless, going 15-11. But Hoyt fell all the way to 13-18 (and a 4.47 earned-run average); Bannister's ERA rose to 4.83, Burns' to 5.00 (to go with a 4-12 record). As for the hitters, Luzinski dropped from 32 homers to 13, and Fisk (.231) and Cruz (.222) struggled through injury-ravaged seasons. Kittle hit .215, Paciorek fell from .307 to .256 and Rudy Law from .283 to .251. So much for a sure thing. Tribune sports copy editor Bob Vanderberg has written several books about the White Sox.
February 19, 200422 yr Every Chicago Reporter is comparing with That but why don't they just talk about the Cubs... Lets see.. Sox won in 1983 and sucked in 1984, True. But the Cubs won in 1984 and Sucked in 1985 and no one metions that. Also they won in 1989 and sucked in 1990 and won again in 1998 and sucked in 1999.. Anybody see a trend here..
February 19, 200422 yr Every Chicago Reporter is comparing with That but why don't they just talk about the Cubs... Lets see.. Sox won in 1983 and sucked in 1984, True. But the Cubs won in 1984 and Sucked in 1985 and no one metions that. Also they won in 1989 and sucked in 1990 and won again in 1998 and sucked in 1999.. Anybody see a trend here.. Can't you see the similatities between the '84 Sox and the '04 Cubs? Preseason expectations include World Series possibilities. Then, each team added a future HOF starting pitcher to an already, supposedly, dominant starting rotation. It's obvious why the picked the '84 Sox to "bash".
February 19, 200422 yr Don't see how it's a Sox bash, it's part of our history. Would it be a Cub bash to compare the '04 Sox to the '70 Cubs?
February 19, 200422 yr Every Chicago Reporter is comparing with That but why don't they just talk about the Cubs... Lets see.. Sox won in 1983 and sucked in 1984, True. But the Cubs won in 1984 and Sucked in 1985 and no one metions that. Also they won in 1989 and sucked in 1990 and won again in 1998 and sucked in 1999.. Anybody see a trend here.. I see where you're going, but there's a fairly significant difference here. The Cubs have made some very solid acquisitions and upgraded, whereas the previous playoff teams ( if memory serves ) brought back virtually everyone and tried to ride the same team for another season. We can look for the black clouds all we want, and they may come yet, but like it or not, I think they're gonna be pretty damn good this year.
February 19, 200422 yr Yeah....Hasn't it been since like 1971-1972 that the Cubs have had 2 back to back winning seasons?
February 20, 200422 yr I bashes the sox in a way but i think that this guy is hoping for the cubs to do the same thing or that its possible to have a solid team on paper but fail to meet expectations. This article is showing that it has happened and it could very well happen again. I really hope the cubs choke again because I cant stand to hear anymore about how good they are going to be. :fthecubs
February 20, 200422 yr I bashes the sox in a way but i think that this guy is hoping for the cubs to do the same thing or that its possible to have a solid team on paper but fail to meet expectations. This article is showing that it has happened and it could very well happen again. I really hope the cubs choke again because I cant stand to hear anymore about how good they are going to be. :fthecubs Just think of all the b****ing and moaning when the Astros win the division and the Cardinals take the wild card.
February 20, 200422 yr Just think of all the b****ing and moaning when the Astros win the division and the Cardinals take the wild card. Let it be.
February 20, 200422 yr Vanderberg is a Sox fan who has written multiple books on the team and its history (my favorite:'59.Summer of the Sox).He is a Sox fan who is NOT bashing the team.As other posters have stated b4 me,let it be. :fthecubs :fthecubs
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.