Baseball season ended less than two weeks ago and already I'm going through withdrawal. I've found myself playing Ken Griffey Jr. Presents Major League Baseball on the Super Nintendo just to fill the void in my life. There's no other sport that captivates me like baseball does. Without it the world is a much duller place. Nonetheless, I'll try to give some sort of take on the other sports I follow.

The NBA season has gotten off to an interesting start. Some of the predictions from my last post already look like they'll be wrong. Then again, anyone who follows sports knows that the way a team starts isn't much to go by. My Bulls just beat the Pistons tonight for their first win after a 0-4 start. Having a 1-4 record isn't ideal, but so what? There's still plenty of season to go. Last year they started 3-9. The season before that they were below .500 most of the year, and even had a 29-39 record at one point. The season before that they got off to a 2-13 start in which they lost their first 9 games. If you've been following the NBA during that stretch, you know they ended up in the Playoffs each of those years. Right now that 1-4 record doesn't look too bad. This Bulls team just finishes better than they start.

My "other" NBA team, the Clippers, is off to a 4-0 start. Color me surprised. With injuries to Elton Brand and Shaun Livingston I didn't expect much out of them this year. Then again, a good start can be just a deceptive as a bad one. In 2000-01 the Cavaliers started out 15-7. Their final record? 30-52. That's right, they got half their wins for the season in their first 22 games. Anything can happen at this point. I'm not going to rush to any conclusions about any teams yet. All I can say is that I hope the Clippers continue to play well and that the Bulls can get back on track after tonight's win.

I'll just skip the NFL since the Lions' 6-2 start and the Browns' 5-3 start have been the most interesting parts of it for me. With my Bears struggling, the only enjoyment I've gotten out of this season is watching the underdogs win. What other sport is there to talk about, you ask? My profile says I only follow baseball, basketball and football. Well, I've started to become more conscious of another sport this season: hockey.

I've always had a weird relationship with hockey. When I was growing up they used to show Blackhawks games on SportsChannel (remember that, Chicagoans?), but at the time I was all about baseball and basketball. I would read the articles in the Chicago Tribune criticizing the Blackhawks' management and analyzing their trades, but between school and following my main sports there wasn't much room for me to be a real hockey fan. Over the past few years I've developed an interest in hockey, because one of the reasons I love baseball seems to apply to hockey as well: the guys who play it have a true passion for the game. That's not to say that athletes in other sports don't have passion, but guys can become basketball players just because they're tall, and guys can become football players just because they're big or fast. Baseball and hockey require more specialized skills, plus you have to go through the minors to make it to the top. If you see an MLB or NHL game you know it took a lot of hard work for those guys to get there. That's the kind of sport I can appreciate. I guess you could say I've always wanted to be a hockey fan but found it hard to do so.

One big problem, especially these days, is that it's hard to find a hockey game on TV. I recently discovered though, that there's an NHL Network on digital cable. I've actually enjoyed watching some of the old games from the 80's that they show. I've heard that hockey was more exciting in those days, but even if the game isn't quite as high-scoring today I can see its appeal. The Blackhawks have been a pretty bad team in recent times (only one Playoff appearance in the past ten years), but they have some young guys coming up that give them hope for the future. They currently have a winning record and look like they have a shot at the Playoffs this season. Perhaps now is a good time for me to become a real hockey fan. Call me a bandwagoner if you wish, but I take pride in any team that represents Chicago. If the Blackhawks ever win another Stanley Cup someday I want to be able to say I was a part of the experience.

I could talk about baseball and all the offseason player movement, but I don't have much to say about it. The only thing I will say is that I hope the White Sox aren't planning on having Juan Uribe start at shortstop next year. I hope the only reason they exercised his option was to have a backup plan. If he's our starter in 2008 we're going to have a big hole in our lineup. Neither the Cubs nor the Sox have made any major moves yet, so until they do I have no particular expectations for next season.

This may be the first post I've made on this blog that covered all four major sports. I guess I'm legit now.

I decided to join an NFL pool at work last week. They gave me a list of all of the week's matchups and I was supposed to pick the winner for each game. If I had the fewest incorrect picks I'd win that week's pool, worth about $30. I ended up getting seven wrong, which basically meant I was out a dollar. Part of my problem was that I went out on a limb and picked a few upsets, but even if I'd gone with the safe picks I wouldn't have gotten them all right. One of my co-workers actually got more right than I did by making random guesses. It brought me back to a question I've pondered many a time before: why are predictions such a big part of sports?

You can't escape them. If you read a blog, the sports section of a newspaper or visit a sports-related website you'll see people making their weekly football picks, their projected final standings at the beginning of a new season, their mock drafts, their pre-season picks for various awards, and their playoff analyses, among other things. What's interesting to me though, is that you rarely see predictions that are 100% accurate. Take a look at ESPN's panel of "experts" and their predictions for the 2006 MLB Playoffs. Not a single one of these "experts" predicted that the Tigers would beat the Yankees in the first round, but we all know how that ended. Also, only one of these "experts" predicted that the White Sox would make the postseason in 2005, but they ended up winning the World Series. Predictions are truly an inexact science. There are so many factors contributing to the final result which are virtually impossible to foresee, yet we still try our luck at determining that result. Why?

I think the biggest reason we make predictions is because it helps us gauge expectations. If we didn't know what to expect, every game would be a mystery. Our emotional response to a game is different depending on what our expectations were going into it. A victory that almost no one was predicting can make a great story, and if you're one of those people who loves rooting for the underdog you get more enjoyment out of the game. Teams and players that don't meet expectations are labeled as underachievers. They could do well but still be seen as failures (Alex Rodriguez, anyone?) if it's not as well as most people thought they were capable of. There are times when I prefer just to sit back and watch things play out, but I also like the human element that's added to the game when you know that players are fighting for their reputations.

The other big reason I can think of for making predictions is that you get some bragging rights when you predict something correctly. Before the 2006 baseball season I attempted to predict the exact records of each team. I actually got the Athletics' (93-69) and Diamondbacks' (76-86) records correct, so I was somewhat proud of that. It wasn't too far off from the proverbial blind squirrel finding an acorn, but I have to admit, it made me feel a little smarter. Personally though, I rarely have those bragging rights.

There are several theories I have for why I don't get that "I called it" feeling too often. One theory is that I'm not as sports-savvy as I think I am (nah, that can't be it). Another theory is that I often go with the safe picks in my predictions, and therefore they don't feel like "my" predictions, just the general consensus. Another theory is that I rarely record my predictions, so I often forget that I even made them. There is one prediction I made in the middle of this season though, that seems to be on the verge of coming true. When the Yankees were struggling I predicted that they'd make the Playoffs. Why can't I be wrong when I want to be? I know there's still some hope left that they'll collapse, but the odds look slim.

Predictions are interesting, but they ultimately aren't worth much. Anything can happen in sports, and even the most accurate predictors tend to be wrong a good portion of the time. I'm not too worried or too confident when "everyone" is predicting a certain outcome, because (as the old cliché goes) games are won on the field, not on paper. I won't waste my time making any predictions this October when postseason baseball gets here. I'm just going to root my heart out for the teams I like (especially if my Cubs are in it) and hope that things go my way. I won't throw away anymore bucks on that football pool either. I just want to enjoy the games as they are. Years from now when we look back on our favorite sports the results will be in the record books, not the predictions.

Anyone who knows me on here probably knows I'm a Chicago sports fan. I grew up in the Chicago suburbs and have a lot of love for the city itself. It's not perfect, but it's my home metropolitan area. I'll back any sports team if it represents the Windy City. Given these facts, you might assume that the first team I ever considered myself a fan of was one of the Chicago teams. Believe it or not, that wasn't the case.

It was a moment of my childhood that I'll always remember. My father was big on teaching us kids things. He wanted us to learn all the states and their capitals, all the U.S. Presidents, and even all the Major League Baseball teams. Rather than just telling us the names of the teams, he tried to teach us by letting us guess along the way. For one team, who played in Montréal, he told us that they got their name because of the 1967 World's Fair Exposition. Any guess as to what their name might be? At that moment something clicked in my subconscious. "The Expos!" I answered. My father smiled and told me I was correct. I was really proud of myself. I had guessed this team's name correctly aided only by an obscure (by a seven-year-old's standards) hint, and my father also seemed proud of me for doing so. I think it was right there that I decided the Expos were my favorite team.

Yes, that's right. My first favorite team was Canadian. There's no shame in it though. Canada's a cool place.

Even though I wasn't a true sports fan at the time, I considered the Expos "my" team. I remember my father watching a Cubs game against the Expos where the Cubs were winning in the 9th. After the Cubs held on to win, I was upset that the Expos lost. My father attempted to comfort me by telling me the Expos had won the day before.

I never quite understood why their hat looked like it said "elb" when I was growing up. One day I showed it to my mother and she pointed out that it looked kind of like a multi-#### "M". It started to make a little more sense after that. I've found out in more recent years that it's supposed to be an "M" standing for "Montréal" overall, with the "e" on one side standing for "Expos" and the "b" on the other side standing for "baseball." I love creative logos and the fact that you can find all kinds of information on the internet.

After a while I became a real baseball fan. I started watching games on my own and following pennant races. Somewhere around this time I decided that I should root for the local teams. I can't recall what my exact thought process was on that decision. It probably had something to do with my reaching an awareness of the concept of hometown pride, or perhaps it was just easier to follow the local teams, especially when my other family members were already fans. Whatever the reason, my allegiances ended up with the Cubs and White Sox. Still, I had a connection with the Expos that lasted even after I no longer considered them "my" team. I usually rooted for them on the side when they weren't playing the Cubs.

I was always disappointed to hear about the Expos' ongoing attendance problems. I remember a segment on "This Week in Baseball" where Mike Lansing, the Expos' second baseman at the time, went around town asking people if they could name any Expos players. Most of the people he talked to couldn't. One woman knew Youppi, the team mascot, but that was it. One guy he asked said his favorite player was Mike Lansing, not realizing that he was actually talking to him. When Lansing asked the fan if he would recognize Mike Lansing on the street the fan said he would. It was pretty funny. It was kind of sad though, that the Expos' lack of popularity was so well-known that they did a humorous segment about it on a show that was supposed to promote baseball.

I knew it was only a matter of time before the Expos were moved out of Montréal. They talked about it for years before it actually happened. They were among baseball's worst draws during their last several years of existence, even when they had some solid teams (including the best record in baseball when the 1994 strike hit). After several mediocre seasons with poor attendance and an unusual arrangement where the other 29 Major League clubs owned the franchise, the Expos were relocated to Washington, D.C. for the 2005 season to become what we now know as the Nationals. There wasn't much I could do about it, but it still disappointed me a little. They were my very first team, after all.

I'd always hoped the Expos would turn it around and win the World Series one day, but it wasn't to be. Perhaps it's best that the Expos are no more, since it was kind of sad for me to watch them sink deeper into ruin year after year. At least now the franchise isn't completely going down the tubes. Still, I miss them. While Nationals games are broadcast here in my current home of Virginia, it's just not the same. The name "Expos" was responsible for my liking them, and they're a completely different team now. I sort of root for them due to their locality and their franchise roots, but I don't feel the same connection to them that I did with their Expo ancestors.

Though I can't honestly say I was a true blue fan the way some people probably were, the Montréal Expos will always hold a special place in my heart. While most people will probably only remember them as a failed team, I'll always have an appreciation for their unique history and the fact that as a young boy in Illinois I once considered them a source of personal pride.

                                          

Once upon a time there were two baseball teams. Both these teams were experiencing long droughts; neither had won the World Series since a time period known as "the Dead Ball Era." Their names were the Chicago Cubs and the Boston Red Sox. While every other team in the majors went about their business as usual every year, baseball was waiting on these two. Each season it was hoped that it would finally be "the year" for one of them. They were America's lovable underdogs. They each had a history full of near misses that haunted their fans continually. Talks of curses were floated about. How could these two teams be so unlucky? Fans all over the country latched onto them in hopes of cheering them on to a long-awaited World Series title someday.

What got overlooked in all the hype about these teams and their droughts was that another team was sitting in the shadows who knew a thing or two about futility. Their name was the Chicago White Sox. They too had not won the World Series since the Dead Ball Era. In fact, they had been waiting longer than the Red Sox. You never heard about it in the mainstream media though. Baseball wasn't waiting on the White Sox. They weren't lovable losers, they were just another team.

There were some logical explanations for the White Sox being overlooked. The Cubs and Red Sox had both gotten closer more times than the White Sox had. When those two teams failed it was often in a dramatic fashion. When they lost there were frequently costly errors, bad managerial decisions or just flat-out choking involved. When the White Sox lost it was usually a simple case of not being good enough. Losing in improbable ways like the Cubs and Red Sox did made the idea of a curse seem real, while the White Sox simply lost because they were outplayed every time. The White Sox were also stuck sharing the city of Chicago with the Cubs. Sure, they'd been waiting a long time, but the Cubs had been waiting longer and had lost in more tragic ways. The White Sox couldn't help but be overshadowed by them. In light of these facts, it does make some sense that the White Sox' drought was often ignored.

I bring this story up because I think it exemplifies what the White Sox are about in many ways. They're a team that consistently flies under the radar. They rarely get much respect or recognition, even though they're often in contention. Just about every great White Sox team has been built on three things: pitching, defense and speed. They're good fundamental elements of the game, but not necessarily stuff that the casual fan gets excited about. If one cares to look though, there's a lot of interesting history to this seemingly lackluster franchise.

A good place to start is the fact that the White Sox won the first American League pennant. It goes largely forgotten due to the fact that there was no World Series in those days, but the White Sox finished in first place in 1901, the first year the American League had "Major League" status.

Though it rarely comes up these days, they pulled off the biggest upset in World Series history. The 1906 team was known as "The Hitless Wonders" due to the fact that they had the league's worst team batting average. With George Davis leading on offense and Ed Walsh heading up the pitching staff, they came from behind in the pennant race to face the Cubs in the only all-Chicago World Series to date. The Cubs had completely dominated the National League with a 116-36 record, but the White Sox beat them in the World Series. It was one of the greatest seasons for a team in baseball history, and if you want to read about it in more detail, you can read this old blog post of mine.

After some seasons hovering around the middle of the pack they returned to the World Series in 1917, led by the legendary "Shoeless Joe" Jackson. They had an outstanding staff that included Eddie Cicotte and Red Faber, and stars like Jackson, Eddie Collins, Happy Felsch and Ray Schalk in their lineup. That 1917 team still has the best record of any team in franchise history (100-54), and they dominated the American League en route to a World Series title. It was another great season, but it was also a year that would haunt Sox fans for generations to come. As many people know, the White Sox were back in the World Series in 1919, and several players got involved with gamblers who paid them to throw the Series. While throwing games was quite common in those days, this scandal was the most publicized case at the time, and it led to the establishment of the Commissioner's office. After Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis was voted into the position in 1920, eight White Sox players (including Shoeless Joe, whose level of guilt is still debated to this day) were banned from the game for life. The White Sox took a hit both on the field and in the public's eyes. They'd lost several key players to banishment and many fans viewed the franchise itself as corrupt, thinking the scandal was an isolated incident. Thus began a 30-year period where mediocrity was the best Sox fans could hope for. Hall of Famers Luke Appling and Ted Lyons were the only major bright spots during this time.

Their fortunes changed in 1951. They had the first of what would be a 17-year streak of winning seasons. They returned to the aforementioned pitching, defense and speed formula with players like Minnie Minoso leading on offense and Billy Pierce their ace pitcher. They were unusual for their time, since most teams of the era focused on power rather than speed to win games. They soon acquired the nickname "Go-Go White Sox" for their exciting style of play. While they returned to respectability in the early 50's, they moved a little closer to first place after they hired Al Lopez as manager in 1957. In 1959, after a 40-year wait, the White Sox finally returned to the World Series.

That 1959 team is one of the most beloved in White Sox history. The famous Hall of Fame middle infield of Nellie Fox (that season's AL MVP) and Luis Aparicio excited fans with their dazzling defense and smallball run production methods. In a now-famous story, the Chicago air raid sirens were turned on in celebration of the Sox' pennant-clinching victory, understandably scaring some people. Though the White Sox were favored going into the Series, they ended up losing to the Dodgers in six games. They did win Game 5 in Los Angeles though, which still holds the record for highest attendance at a Major League Baseball game. Though they continued to field a solid team for years to come, that 1959 team was the only pennant winner from the "Go-Go Sox" period. They had a few near misses with the pennant in 1964 and 1967, but ultimately it wasn't to be.

In 1979 the White Sox helped the disco fad die when they staged a publicity event called "Disco Demolition Night." Fans bringing disco records could get into the park for only 98 cents. Between games of that night's doubleheader they put all the disco records into a dumpster rigged with a bomb and detonated it. The stunt ended up backfiring when the crowd (which consisted more of anti-disco fans than baseball fans) started a riot and tore up the field, which was already in bad condition due to the explosion. The Sox had to forfeit the second game, and the White Sox once again ended up with some bad publicity.

The 80's wasn't a very noteworthy decade except that the Sox won the division title in 1983. Led by  catcher Carlton Fisk, (you guessed it) a top-notch pitching staff and speedsters Julio Cruz and Rudy Law, that 1983 team started off poorly but came to life in the second half to win 99 games. Unfortunately, they lost the American League Championship Series to the Orioles and the city of Chicago had to keep waiting for a pennant. The first half of the 90's were another good period for the White Sox. After a last place finish in 1989, the White Sox' young, up-and-coming players surprised everyone by winning 94 games. It was the start o####ood hal####ecade where players like Frank Thomas, Robin Ventura, Ozzie Guillen and Jack McDowell would have the White Sox in contention every year. They won the division title in 1993, but again fell short of the World Series when the eventual champion Blue Jays beat them in the ALCS.

Everything was going right for the White Sox in 1994. They were in first place and playing like it was their year when the strike suddenly hit. If they would've won the World Series that year we'll never know, but many Sox fans still remember it as a championship year that should have been. They wouldn't return to the Playoffs until 2000. The 2000 team had a similar story to the White Sox of a decade earlier; they were a collection of young talent (sluggers Carlos Lee, Magglio Ordoñez and Paul Konerko and pitchers Jim Parque and Mike Sirotka) that was finally blossoming. They took first place in April and never looked back, but the usual fate awaited them in the Playoffs, as they were swept by the Mariners. The White Sox never had a losing record in the first half of the 2000's, but they were rarely better than a few games above .500.

After leading the AL in homers in 2004, the White Sox remodeled their team to fit the model of (yep) pitching, defense and speed, though they still had significant power in their lineup. Their pitching staff stepped it up from top to bottom in 2005, with several hurlers having career years. They became one of the few teams in baseball history to be in first place for the entirety of a season, even surviving a second-half surge from the Indians. With Ozzie Guillen managing the team, their slogan for the season became "Win or Die Trying," which perfectly suited the blue-collar personality the franchise has always carried with it.

Their first Playoff opponent was the defending champion Boston Red Sox. While many members of the national media predicted the Red Sox would win easily, the White Sox swept them, with several dramatic moments along the way. Their next opponent was the Angels, who were probably the AL's second best team. The White Sox managed to beat them in five games to give Chicago its first pennant in 46 years. It was an exciting moment for the city, but there was still work to be done. They faced the Houston Astros in the World Series. They won Game 1 by two runs, but the Astros threatened a few times in the late innings. Game 2 they won on a homer by Scott Podsednik, a speedy outfielder who hadn't hit one at all during the regular season. Game 3 went 14 innings, but the White Sox finally broke through on a homer by pinch-hitter Geoff Blum and held on to win. In Game 4 the Sox were up 1-0 in the bottom of the ninth, and it took two outstanding defensive plays by shortstop Juan Uribe to seal the deal. It was the most exciting sweep in World Series history, but more importantly, the White Sox had won the World Series for the first time in 88 years. The Sox may have regressed a bit since then, but no fan will ever forget 2005.

The White Sox have gotten more attention in recent times due to the personality of Ozzie Guillen and the fact that they won the World Series just two years ago. It's a shame that for so long their unique history was rarely brought up outside the context of the negative stuff. While they're currently struggling through their worst season in quite some time, they still have the talent to improve next year. Things never come easy for the Sox, but their fans know how to tough it out. If you're a diehard fan who enjoys old-fashioned baseball and generally looks for the diamond in the rough, there's no better team you could possibly root for than the Chicago White Sox.

                                          

Ryan Dempster has been a solid pitcher for the Cubs over the past four seasons. He's had some inconsistency, but overall he's done what we've asked of him. When he joined the Cubs he took the uniform number 46, which he wore during his prime years as a starter with the Marlins. Certainly it wasn't a surprising choice, as many players prefer to wear the same number as often as possible during their careers.

Before the 2006 season the Cubs signed another veteran reliever, Bob Howry. The Cubs were Howry's fourth Major League team, and he had worn number 46 at some point with each of the previous three. Because of Dempster, he chose the number 62. Howry said at the time that he didn't want to be one of those guys who wore a bunch of different numbers during his career, so he took 62 because it was the number he wore as a rookie with the White Sox. Howry had also worn 62 during the first of his two seasons with the Indians, but he switched to 46 for the second.

Before this season the Cubs acquired pitcher Neal Cotts from the White Sox. Cotts had worn number 46 the previous three seasons, but that was obviously no longer an option with the Cubs. He'd worn number 38 for four games during his first Major League callup, but Carlos Zambrano already had that one too. Unlike Howry, he had to take a number he'd never worn at the Major League level. Cotts is currently back in the Minors, but he wore number 48 earlier this season for the Cubs and still holds that number on their 40-man roster. Perhaps he combined his two numbers with the Sox. I'm not sure.

Now there's the Cubs' most recent acquisition. After leaving the team as a free agent following the 1999 season, Steve Trachsel has returned to the Cubs in a trade with the Orioles. While he's worn a few different numbers since he's been away, his number during his first seven years with the team was (you guessed it) 46. Trachsel is listed on the Cubs' roster now as wearing number 52. Though it's been a while, my "visual" of Steve Trachsel is him on the mound with that big 46 on his back. It'll be odd to see him wearing something else.

In Ryan Dempster's relatively short tenure with the Cubs he's already denied three other pitchers the ability to wear a familiar number. I certainly wouldn't suggest that he give up number 46 for any of them (since none of them will go down in history as anything better than "above average"), but it's interesting. I can't recall another time when I've seen that many guys have to switch numbers over a player of Dempster's caliber. If the Cubs get rid of him anytime soon I have a feeling that a few guys are going to be fighting over a certain two-digit combination.