PDA

View Full Version : Magic Number


Lip Man 1
09-21-2012, 12:04 AM
I actually just saw this and had to do a double take. I couldn't believe it at first.

On the Tribune web site they are actually running two sets of "magic numbers".

The first one for the Cubs is at 5. The second one for the Sox is at 12. Everyone understands the Sox number...but the Cubs 'magic number' is to avoid 100 losses!

:?:

Is that something to promote? or act like that's an accomplishment?

Amazing.

Lip

PalehosePlanet
09-21-2012, 01:21 AM
I actually just saw this and had to do a double take. I couldn't believe it at first.

On the Tribune web site they are actually running two sets of "magic numbers".

The first one for the Cubs is at 5. The second one for the Sox is at 12. Everyone understands the Sox number...but the Cubs 'magic number' is to avoid 100 losses!

:?:

Is that something to promote? or act like that's an accomplishment?

Amazing.

Lip

Lip, when your claim to fame is futility, things like this are considered cute.

cub killer
09-21-2012, 03:57 AM
Stuff like this is what What's The Score? was invented for.

Absolutely shameful by the Trib. Even as a joke, it's still pretty sickening that they just have to keep giving that pitiful team that much attention. I too am speechless.

C-Dawg
09-21-2012, 07:32 AM
Perhaps the Cubs are expecting a trophy for avoiding 100 losses?

I am reminded of one year, probably 2005, when the Tribune kept running a little graphic with the AC Central race, and the NL Wild Card race, so as to appear the Cubs were still in contention for, well, something. The point became obviously moot as they had to keep expanding the Wild Card graphic as the Cubs dropped farther and farther behind the leaders.

"Oh, look, only 15 games out of the lead for the Wild Card! Go Cubs!!"

DumpJerry
09-21-2012, 08:04 AM
My friends who are Cub fans have been touting their magic number for weeks now.








They tell me it's good to set goals.

SephClone89
09-21-2012, 08:34 AM
Chill out, guys. If we can bash the Cubs, they can be self-deprecating too.

doublem23
09-21-2012, 08:54 AM
Chill out, guys. If we can bash the Cubs, they can be self-deprecating too.

Yeah, I took it as kind of a swipe at the Cubs, like anyone would actually celebrate a 63-99 season.

Also, at least in the print form, the Cubs "Magic Number" is off in the Cubs section. They're not running the two together. Don't know how it is on the website.

TheOldRoman
09-21-2012, 09:51 AM
Yeah, I took it as kind of a swipe at the Cubs, like anyone would actually celebrate a 63-99 season.Actually, I'm pretty sure "not lose 100 games" is Lip's first benchmark before "winning season". :tiphat:

kittle42
09-21-2012, 10:48 AM
Actually, I'm pretty sure "not lose 100 games" is Lip's first benchmark before "winning season". :tiphat:

You beat me to it.

100 losses is the same as 80 if you don't make the postseason.

DumpJerry
09-21-2012, 11:15 AM
100 losses is the same as 80 if you don't make the postseason.
:fail:Post this on the day of the draft if you really believe this.

kittle42
09-21-2012, 11:26 AM
:fail:Post this on the day of the draft if you really believe this.

On the day of the draft, it's probably the only time I'd be happy having 100 losses!

doublem23
09-21-2012, 11:39 AM
:fail:Post this on the day of the draft if you really believe this.

The Sox draft so poorly anyway, who gives a **** where they draft?

Not really worth having to sit through a 100 loss season to see them waste a Top 10 pick.

DumpJerry
09-21-2012, 11:49 AM
The Sox draft so poorly anyway, who gives a **** where they draft?

Not really worth having to sit through a 100 loss season to see them waste a Top 10 pick.
This thread is about the Cubs' record, not the Sox. But as long as we're on the topic of poor draft choices by the Sox, we'll just send Chris Sale to the Twins for cash consideration.

doublem23
09-21-2012, 11:57 AM
This thread is about the Cubs' record, not the Sox. But as long as we're on the topic of poor draft choices by the Sox, we'll just send Chris Sale to the Twins for cash consideration.

Woo! 1 in 25!

russ99
09-21-2012, 12:45 PM
On the day of the draft, it's probably the only time I'd be happy having 100 losses!

And yet, the Astros will still pick first, so fail on both counts. :D:

Lip Man 1
09-21-2012, 12:57 PM
Double:

On the web site they are right next to each other.

Lip

doublem23
09-21-2012, 01:24 PM
Doesn't that make it that much funnier? Oh, the Sox are in a fight for the postseason, we're over here trying desperately to stave off 100 losses.

Really looks like the Trib is having some fun at Ricketts' expense.

Lip Man 1
09-21-2012, 01:41 PM
Maybe...just don't know. It's hard sometimes to understand what they think really counts, that goes for the Tribune, the Cubs organization and Cub-fans in general.

Lip

SephClone89
09-22-2012, 08:37 PM
Maybe...just don't know. It's hard sometimes to understand what they think really counts, that goes for the Tribune, the Cubs organization and Cub-fans in general.

Lip

No, it's really not. This is a dig at the Cubs. End of.

Hitmen77
09-24-2012, 09:51 AM
Cubs "magic number" is 6 with nine games to go.

DumpJerry
09-24-2012, 11:28 AM
Cubs "magic number" is 6 with nine games to go.
It's four. They have 59 wins. Four more and they have 63.

DeadMoney
09-24-2012, 11:33 AM
It's four. They have 59 wins. Four more and they have 63.

...with 3 games against the Astros at home to end the season. I think they'll be close, but will be able to avoid 100 losses.

TommyJohn
09-24-2012, 06:16 PM
It's four. They have 59 wins. Four more and they have 63.


They need to win one more game in order to avoid tying their worst record ever-59-103, done in 1962 and 1966.

Hitmen77
09-25-2012, 09:41 AM
They're at 94 losses now. This makes it the 6th time since 1996 that they've lost at least that many games. This includes 96 losses in 2006, 95 losses in 2002, and 97 losses in 2000. It's a "W"ay of Life! :rolleyes:

In comparison, the Sox have lost more than 90 games only once (92 losses in '89) since 1976.

harwar
09-26-2012, 08:36 AM
You might as well just light that magic number up, because this season is all going up in smoke <- this is supposed to be a joke .. if i wasn't so colorblind then i would have used the teal thing

Lip Man 1
09-27-2012, 12:25 PM
This morning on the web site I noticed the Tribune had removed both magic number references for the Cubs and Sox. Maybe they know something...

Lip

DumpJerry
10-01-2012, 11:00 PM
...and with a 3-0 loss tonight, the Cubs and Astros will play a rare game tomorrow:

Two one hundred loss teams facing each other. Someone told me this would be the first time in MLB history. Does anyone know if this is true?

DSpivack
10-01-2012, 11:08 PM
...and with a 3-0 loss tonight, the Cubs and Astros will play a rare game tomorrow:

Two one hundred loss teams facing each other. Someone told me this would be the first time in MLB history. Does anyone know if this is true?

Speaking of magic numbers, the Tigers just clinched the division.

16th&State
10-01-2012, 11:13 PM
I really wanted to see a Sox division winner and a Cubs 100 loss season. Guess I'll settle for the guilty pleasure of 100+ Cubs losses...:cool:

Lip Man 1
10-01-2012, 11:19 PM
Dump:

That's hard to believe given all the years of the Philadelphia A's / Washington Senators / Cubs teams and the early New York Mets / Montreal Expos etc.

Lip

Johnny Mostil
10-01-2012, 11:22 PM
...and with a 3-0 loss tonight, the Cubs and Astros will play a rare game tomorrow:

Two one hundred loss teams facing each other. Someone told me this would be the first time in MLB history. Does anyone know if this is true?

Not true. In 1962, the Cubs, who lost 103 for the season, and the Mets, who lost 120, played their final three games against each other. Going into game 160, the Cubs were 57-102 and the Mets were 39-118.

I don't know if there were other instances of 100-loss teams playing each other.

Nellie_Fox
10-02-2012, 01:25 AM
Dump:

That's hard to believe given all the years of the Philadelphia A's / Washington Senators / Cubs teams and the early New York Mets / Montreal Expos etc.

LipI really, really wish you'd use the quote function so I don't have to go paging back to find the post you're referencing.

doublem23
10-02-2012, 02:11 AM
...and with a 3-0 loss tonight, the Cubs and Astros will play a rare game tomorrow:

Two one hundred loss teams facing each other. Someone told me this would be the first time in MLB history. Does anyone know if this is true?

It's not, but it's also not a common occurrence. It's actually been 50 years this week, as the last game before tomorrow's with a pair of 100-game losers was September 30, 1962 when the Mets (40-120... expansion teams) played the, you guessed it, Cubs (59-103) in front of a robust crowd of 4,000 people at Wrigley Field.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHN/CHN196209300.shtml

I would like to point out that that 103-loss Cubs team now had 3 future Hall of Fame players in the middle of their lineup. Unbelievable.

WhiteSox5187
10-02-2012, 03:44 AM
It's not, but it's also not a common occurrence. It's actually been 50 years this week, as the last game before tomorrow's with a pair of 100-game losers was September 30, 1962 when the Mets (40-120... expansion teams) played the, you guessed it, Cubs (59-103) in front of a robust crowd of 4,000 people at Wrigley Field.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHN/CHN196209300.shtml

I would like to point out that that 103-loss Cubs team now had 3 future Hall of Fame players in the middle of their lineup. Unbelievable.

With Richie Ashburn playing in that game (at second base no less!) there were FOUR hall of famers in that game.

DumpJerry
10-02-2012, 08:47 AM
in front of a robust crowd of 4,000 people at Wrigley Field.
Lies! It was 40,000. The Cubs draw more than 4,000 when there is a rainout with tornado watches. Just ask their fans. They are the World's Greatest Fans.

Hitmen77
10-02-2012, 10:51 AM
It's not, but it's also not a common occurrence. It's actually been 50 years this week, as the last game before tomorrow's with a pair of 100-game losers was September 30, 1962 when the Mets (40-120... expansion teams) played the, you guessed it, Cubs (59-103) in front of a robust crowd of 4,000 people at Wrigley Field.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHN/CHN196209300.shtml

I would like to point out that that 103-loss Cubs team now had 3 future Hall of Fame players in the middle of their lineup. Unbelievable.

It'll only cost you 50 cents to see a (or is it "an"?) historic game!:tongue:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-talk-cheap-cubs-tickets-1002-20121002,0,6848972.story

Johnny Mostil
10-02-2012, 11:35 AM
It'll only cost you 50 cents to see a (or is it "an"?) historic game!:tongue:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/ct-talk-cheap-cubs-tickets-1002-20121002,0,6848972.story

Isn't that about what tickets cost the last time two 100-loss teams played?:scratch::wink:

DumpJerry
10-02-2012, 01:17 PM
The only other time before 1962 this happened was during a five game series at the end of the 1905 season, the Boston Beaneaters (a/k/a Atlanta Braves) played the Brooklyn Superbas (a/k/a Los Angeles Dodgers). The Beaneaters lost game one of the series to run their record to 50-100. The Superbas came into the series with a 45-103 record. When the series ended, the Beaneaters' record was 51-103 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BSN/1905-schedule-scores.shtml) and the Superbas' record was 48-104. (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BRO/1905-schedule-scores.shtml)

Why, oh why, did they change their names????

cub killer
10-02-2012, 08:27 PM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A4OmgC6CIAARpEv.jpg

DumpJerry
10-03-2012, 10:13 AM
If the Cubs win today's game (if it gets played, it's raining right now), then Sox fans can spend the offseason torturing Cub fans with variations of jokes involving the movie "101 Dalmatians."

doublem23
10-03-2012, 10:17 AM
Man, I am getting that cake for my brother's birthday in December

SOXPHILE
10-04-2012, 11:36 AM
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/A4OmgC6CIAARpEv.jpg

I showed this to someone at work, and she ordered a cake from Costco with that on it. We are going to be bringing it in tomorrow for the friday treat.