PDA

View Full Version : AP: Chicago World Series would be WWIII


MarqSox
09-05-2003, 09:31 AM
Nice article from the AP about what an El Series would be like. Interesting and fair to both teams.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/bbo_chicago_series

KingXerxes
09-05-2003, 10:02 AM
Okay:

Let's set the likelihood of the White Sox Winning the Central at 50%. And let's set the Cubs likelihood at 33%.

Then - assuming both teams make the playoffs, let's assume that both teams have a one in four chance of winning the pennant (25%).

Here are the odds of the two meeting n the World Series:

50% x 33% x 25% x 25% = 1.03%

A little better than one in a hundred.

Even if both teams make the playoffs, the likelyhood is only 6.25% that they meet in the Series.

I'm sure The Associated Press would pardon me if I don't hold my breath until this happens.

Gumshoe
09-05-2003, 10:19 AM
I like your stats there ... but the odds are more like 75% that the Sox win it, and 33 is good for the Cubs ... I agree it is about 1/16 at best that both meet in the series .... but let's bump it up to about 2% chance ... haha

Gumshoe

fhqwhgads
09-05-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Gumshoe
I like your stats there ... but the odds are more like 75% that the Sox win it...
Gumshoe

I appreciate the depth of feeling, but 75% is a bit optimistic, don't you think? Our magic number is the same as yours...

gosox3072
09-05-2003, 10:26 AM
Who cares just the thought of a possibility of a all chicago WS is exciting, i cant imagine how crazy it would be

Foulke You
09-05-2003, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by gosox3072
Who cares just the thought of a possibility of a all chicago WS is exciting, i cant imagine how crazy it would be

I'm not sure this city could handle it. It would be insane on both sides of town. I can't even imagine what the ticket scalping rate for that series would be. Losing would not be an option for the Sox. We would have to move to Canada if we lost to the Cubs in the World Series. Yankees/Mets would be a tea party compared to a World Series Cubs/Sox civil war.

KingXerxes
09-05-2003, 11:34 AM
Would you rather:

A. - Win the American League Pennant and lose the World Series 4 - 0 to the Cubs.

B. - Lose the ACLS to the Yankees, and have the Yankees lose the World Series 4 - 0 to the Cubs.

Is it better to win the pennant and suffer a bad fate, or to avoid the situation all together?

I personally would choose A. Just win the damned pennant - that's all I ask for.

mandmandm
09-05-2003, 11:38 AM
I would take A. If B happens you can start boarding up the Cell.

sox_fan_forever
09-05-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Would you rather:

A. - Win the American League Pennant and lose the World Series 4 - 0 to the Cubs.

B. - Lose the ACLS to the Yankees, and have the Yankees lose the World Series 4 - 0 to the Cubs.

Is it better to win the pennant and suffer a bad fate, or to avoid the situation all together?

I personally would choose A. Just win the damned pennant - that's all I ask for.

I would have to say B. The Cubs winning the World Series would abviously make them even more popular than they are already. However, if B happened I don't think the Sox situation would be that much worse than it is now. It would be worse, but not by that much. (Maybe I am being optimistic with that thought.) If A were to happen I think that would pretty much be the end of the Sox.

KingXerxes
09-05-2003, 11:51 AM
I think the Cub popularity has reached a point of saturation. By winning the pennant at least we hit the RADAR screen with most people. I'll still take A.

PaleHoseGeorge
09-05-2003, 12:00 PM
C. Sox win World Series. Cubs crash & burn and are long-forgotten.

Sorry. I'm not entertaining any other possiblilities right now.

:)

voodoochile
09-05-2003, 12:06 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
C. Sox win World Series. Cubs crash & burn and are long-forgotten.

Sorry. I'm not entertaining any other possiblilities right now.

:)

Thanks, George. Anything else is unacceptable and thus will it ever remain until your wish comes true...

MarqSox
09-05-2003, 12:16 PM
A Sox-Cubs series would seriously be Chicago Fire II ... if the Sox won, they'd burn the South Side in riotous celebration, and the North Side would be trashed in anger. If the Cubs won, they'd burn the North Side in riotous celebration and the South Side would be trashed in anger.

As a side note, I intend to swim (highly drunk, of course) in Buckingham Fountain when the Sox win the World Series. :)

Rocky Soprano
09-05-2003, 12:53 PM
D. Sox Win World Series, Cubs Bus "Misteriously" Blows up on way back to Wrigley. Mayor Daley claims there are no reasons to believe foul play is involved.

:D:

MarqSox
09-05-2003, 12:55 PM
Originally posted by Rocky Soprano
D. Sox Win World Series, Cubs Bus "Misteriously" Blows up on way back to Wrigley. Mayor Daley claims there are no reasons to believe foul play is involved.

:D:
That's kinda messed up dude.

Rocky Soprano
09-05-2003, 12:57 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
That's kinda messed up dude.

Lighten up bro, its only a joke. :gulp:

Viva Magglio
09-05-2003, 01:01 PM
I think we know the answer to this already:

Which would you rather have:

A. Sox lose World Series to Cubs.

B. Sox lose World Series to other NL team.

B's my choice.

MarqSox
09-05-2003, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by Rocky Soprano
Lighten up bro, its only a joke. :gulp:
IMO, if a "joke" wouldn't be funny if it actually happened, then it's not really a joke, merely poor taste. But to each his own.

thecell
09-05-2003, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by Rocky Soprano
D. Sox Win World Series, Cubs Bus "Misteriously" Blows up on way back to Wrigley. Mayor Daley claims there are no reasons to believe foul play is involved.

:D:

LMAO! I guess people not around Chicago don't get it. Great JOKE.

MarqSox
09-05-2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by thecell
LMAO! I guess people not around Chicago don't get it. Great JOKE.
I'm a recent transplant from Chicago ... I "got" it. Just didn't think it was funny.

THE_HOOTER
09-05-2003, 02:14 PM
I didnt think it was funny either.

Nellie_Fox
09-05-2003, 02:32 PM
Now, Wrigley Field blowing up, that would be funny.

Rocky Soprano
09-05-2003, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Now, Wrigley Field blowing up, that would be funny.


Yes it would!

But sshhh, dont say it too loud cause the uptight people will get you!

MarqSox
09-05-2003, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Rocky Soprano
Yes it would!

But sshhh, dont say it too loud cause the uptight people will get you!
I don't get uptight about too many things, but "jokes" about killing people are somehow not humorous to me.

Mammoo
09-05-2003, 03:16 PM
...but if the Sox sweep the Indians this weekend, they will be well on there way! :smile:

MRKARNO
09-05-2003, 03:52 PM
Originally posted by KingXerxes
Okay:

Let's set the likelihood of the White Sox Winning the Central at 50%. And let's set the Cubs likelihood at 33%.

Then - assuming both teams make the playoffs, let's assume that both teams have a one in four chance of winning the pennant (25%).

Here are the odds of the two meeting n the World Series:

50% x 33% x 25% x 25% = 1.03%

A little better than one in a hundred.

Even if both teams make the playoffs, the likelyhood is only 6.25% that they meet in the Series.

I'm sure The Associated Press would pardon me if I don't hold my breath until this happens.


How would the odds change if we took the baseball prospectus postseason odds into account?

currently the white sox have a 44.1% chance to make the postseason and the cubs have a 53.4% chance to make october according to this.


Take note: Dont get too upset about the 44.1 percent chance. It was 63% just a day ago and it is based mainly on Rest of Year predicted winning %. If we take 5 or 6 from the twins, our chances will go up big time. The royals chances are at 6.9%.

ChiSox21
09-05-2003, 04:15 PM
if the Sox lost the W.S to another NL team that the Cubs lost to. The Cub fans would be saying that there better than us because they lost to that team too. So that would still be a disapointing thing to happen.

southsidegirl
09-05-2003, 04:21 PM
If the Cubs and Sox were in a WS together, the Cubs fans would trash the Cell saying that the Urinal is a better enviorment to watch baseball and that we might as well play all 7 games there.

thecell
09-05-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Now, Wrigley Field blowing up, that would be funny.

No it wouldn't...people may get hurt. :)

chisoxfanatic
09-05-2003, 04:40 PM
And other titles? For all their history and Hall of Famers, the Bears have won one measly Super Bowl.

Yea, but the Bears have won NINE championships in their history!


For the country's third-largest city, Chicago has a pretty pitiful record when it comes to sports teams.

I guess the author of this article clearly doesn't have a clue about the history of the Chicago sports scene! Chicago sports teams have won a combined 22 championships!!!

Bears--9, Bulls--6, Blackhawks--3, White Sox--2, Cubs--2

That's right!!! TWENTY-TWO!!!

Find me another city with more TOTAL championships than Chicago other than New York!!! You can't find many!!!

It pisses me off to no end when the national media makes us look like bigger losers than we are in reality! The media has to get rid of their myopicness and actually look past what's happened in the last five years! What happened back when Harry S. Truman was a president is EQUALLY as important as the things that are happening right now!


Oh, and I don't wanna even imagine how much disarray my stomach would be feeling during said El Series!

Rocky Soprano
09-05-2003, 04:47 PM
And you are not even counting The Fire, who I think one a championship and how many did the Chicago Wolves win?

voodoochile
09-05-2003, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by Rocky Soprano
And you are not even counting The Fire, who I think one a championship and how many did the Chicago Wolves win?

The Sting won a couple also (one indoor, one outdoor, IIRC) and I don't know if the NFL Cardinals won any while they were playing in Chicago before moving to St Louis and then on to Arizona.

MRKARNO
09-05-2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by Rocky Soprano
And you are not even counting The Fire, who I think one a championship and how many did the Chicago Wolves win?

The wolves have won three, two in the relatively small IHL, but that folded and the better IHL teams went to the now 30 team AHL, which the wolves won their first year.

Daver
09-05-2003, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by Nellie_Fox
Now, Wrigley Field blowing up, that would be funny.


http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/daver/wrigley3.jpg

MarqSox
09-05-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by chisoxfanatic
Yea, but the Bears have won NINE championships in their history!

I guess the author of this article clearly doesn't have a clue about the history of the Chicago sports scene! Chicago sports teams have won a combined 22 championships!!!

Bears--9, Bulls--6, Blackhawks--3, White Sox--2, Cubs--2

That's right!!! TWENTY-TWO!!!

Find me another city with more TOTAL championships than Chicago other than New York!!! You can't find many!!!

That's a ridiculous statement ... name another city with five professional sports teams besides New York! You can't find many.

Let's break this down, since I have nothing else to do. Since 1903 (the year of the first World Series), Chicago's five major sports teams have played a total of 389 seasons. Add the Chicago Cardinals, who won two championships in 37 seasons in before moving to St. Louis; the NBA's Chicago Stags, who won zero titles between 1946 and 1950; the NBA's Chicago Zephyrs, who won zero titles between 1960 and 1963; the NFL's Chicago Tigers, who played the 1920 season; and you have 24 championships in 428 seasons.

I'll do the math for you: that's a pathetic 6 championships every 100 seasons.

I don't have the patience to break down every city's ratio, but I'll choose three at random: Milwaukee, St. Louis and Los Angeles.

Milwaukee:
Brewers, 0 titles in 32 seasons
Braves, 1 title in 12 seasons
Bucks, 1 title in 35 seasons
Hawks (NBA), 0 titles in 2 seasons
Badgers (NFL), 0 titles in 4 seasons
Milwaukee has 2 titles in 85 seasons.

St. Louis:
All Stars (NFL), 0 titles in 1 season
Gunners (NFL), 0 titles in 1 season
Cardinals (NFL), 0 titles in 28 seasons
Rams, 1 title in 8 seasons
Hawks (NBA), 1 title in 12 seasons
Cardinals (MLB), 9 titles in 100 seasons
Browns (MLB), 0 titles in 50 seasons
Blues, 0 titles in 35 seasons
St. Louis has 11 titles in 235 seasons.

Los Angeles:
Buccaneers (NFL), 0 titles in 1 season
Chargers, 0 titles in 11 seasons
Raiders, 1 titles in 12 seasons
Rams, 2 titles in 49 seasons
Lakers, 9 titles in 42 seasons
Dodgers, 5 titles in 44 seasons
Angels, 0 titles in 5 seasons
L.A. has 17 titles in 164 seasons.

So your randomized four-team championship standings are as follows:
Los Angeles .104
Chicago .056
St. Louis .047
Milwaukee .024

Obviously, New York would blow all of those right off the map. So what have we learned? Chicago's sports history isn't THAT pathetic, nor is it anything to be impressed with either.

voodoochile
09-05-2003, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
That's a ridiculous statement ... name another city with five professional sports teams besides New York! You can't find many.

Let's break this down, since I have nothing else to do. Since 1903 (the year of the first World Series), Chicago's five major sports teams have played a total of 389 seasons. Add the Chicago Cardinals, who won two championships in 37 seasons in before moving to St. Louis; the NBA's Chicago Stags, who won zero titles between 1946 and 1950; the NBA's Chicago Zephyrs, who won zero titles between 1960 and 1963; the NFL's Chicago Tigers, who played the 1920 season; and you have 24 championships in 428 seasons.

I'll do the math for you: that's a pathetic 6 championships every 100 seasons.

I don't have the patience to break down every city's ratio, but I'll choose three at random: Milwaukee, St. Louis and Los Angeles.

Milwaukee:
Brewers, 0 titles in 32 seasons
Braves, 1 title in 12 seasons
Bucks, 1 title in 35 seasons
Hawks (NBA), 0 titles in 2 seasons
Badgers (NFL), 0 titles in 4 seasons
Milwaukee has 2 titles in 85 seasons.

St. Louis:
All Stars (NFL), 0 titles in 1 season
Gunners (NFL), 0 titles in 1 season
Cardinals (NFL), 0 titles in 28 seasons
Rams, 1 title in 8 seasons
Hawks (NBA), 1 title in 12 seasons
Cardinals (MLB), 9 titles in 100 seasons
Browns (MLB), 0 titles in 50 seasons
Blues, 0 titles in 35 seasons
St. Louis has 11 titles in 235 seasons.

Los Angeles:
Buccaneers (NFL), 0 titles in 1 season
Chargers, 0 titles in 11 seasons
Raiders, 1 titles in 12 seasons
Rams, 2 titles in 49 seasons
Lakers, 9 titles in 42 seasons
Dodgers, 5 titles in 44 seasons
L.A. has 17 titles in 159 seasons.

So your randomized four-team championship standings are as follows:
Los Angeles .107
Chicago .056
St. Louis .047
Milwaukee .024

Obviously, New York would blow all of those right off the map. So what have we learned? Chicago's sports history isn't THAT pathetic, nor is it anything to be impressed with either.

You left the Angels out of your LA analysis. Anaheim for all intents and purposes is a suburb of LA. It would be like ruling the Jets aren't a NY team because they play their games in the Meadowlands.

MarqSox
09-05-2003, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You left the Angels out of your LA analysis. Anaheim for all intents and purposes is a suburb of LA. It would be like ruling the Jets aren't a NY team because they play their games in the Meadowlands.
I disagree ... Anaheim is a different city; you wouldn't count the A's for San Francisco. Particularly since the Angels embraced Anaheim and identified with that city. I will, however, accept the fact that the Angels played their first five years as the LA Angels, and my analysis has been edited to reflect that.

voodoochile
09-05-2003, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
I disagree ... Anaheim is a different city; you wouldn't count the A's for San Francisco. Particularly since the Angels embraced Anaheim and identified with that city. I will, however, accept the fact that the Angels played their first five years as the LA Angels, and my analysis has been edited to reflect that.

Yes, and then for most of the rest of their existence they were the California Angels. What city did they play in then?

MarqSox
09-05-2003, 06:50 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, and then for most of the rest of their existence they were the California Angels. What city did they play in then?
They moved to Anaheim after playing in LA's Wrigley Field, renaming themselves the California Angels. Had they not later renamed themselves the Anaheim Angels, I may have accepted the argument that they were always an LA team, but they obviously shunned that distinction after Year 5.