PDA

View Full Version : WS record compare to recently great teams


FanofBill
06-23-2005, 11:26 AM
1984 Tigers----- 1998 Yankees----2001 Mariners-----1986 Mets-----2005 WS
Games: W - L--- Games: W L----Games: W L---Games: W L--Games: W L
70: 52-18-------70: 51-19----------70: 53-17--------70: 49-21------70: 48-22
80: 55-25-------80: 60-20----------80: 59-21--------80: 55-25------80: 54-26
90: 62-28-------90: 67-23----------90: 65-25--------90: 62-28------90: 61-29
100: 69-31------100: 74-26--------100: 72-28-------100: 68-32-----
110: 72-38------110: 81-29--------110: 80-30-------110: 75-35-----
120: 77-43------120: 90-30--------120: 87-33-------120: 79-41-----
130: 85-45------130: 94-36--------130: 94-36-------130: 87-43-----
140: 89-51------140: 100-40------140: 100-40------140: 93-47-----
150: 96-54------150: 104-46------150: 106-44------150: 98-52-----
162: 104-58----162: 114-48-------162: 116-46------162: 108-54---
Month: W-L----Month: W-L-------Month: W-L------Month: W-L---Month: W L
April: 18-2------April: 17-6--------April: 20-5--------April: 13-3-----April: 17-7
May: 19-7------May: 20-7---------May: 20-7--------May: 18-9-----May: 18-10
June: 18-12-----June: 19-7---------June: 18-9--------June: 19-9------June: 18-7
July: 16-12-----July: 20-7----------July: 18-9---------July: 16-11-----
Aug: 16-15-----Aug: 22-10--------Aug: 20-9---------Aug: 21-11----
Sept: 17-10----Sep: 16-11---------Sept: 15-6--------Sep: 16-11----
-------------------------------------Oct: 5-1----------Oct: 5-0-------

FanofBill
06-30-2005, 07:57 PM
bump

ode to veeck
06-30-2005, 08:02 PM
curious, what did the '06 flubs do at similar points (they hold regular season wins record by 2 over '98 yank-mes)


thank god for the series that year!

ode to veeck
06-30-2005, 08:04 PM
looked it up, the '06 scrubs were 49-21 after 70, not that anyone is counting


its wayyyy too early to be thinking about this stuff

let's go win one game at a time, starting this weekend in oakland

ode to veeck
06-30-2005, 08:10 PM
... and on July 12th , 1906, they were 53-24, the Sox record today

while the most wins record is perhaps very very remotely conceivable
(one more very = dark cloud ;-) , the overall win % is probably out of reach, they were 116-36 for a whopping 0.763 W-L%

OK, I'll stop now

ode to veeck
06-30-2005, 08:26 PM
which implies by the way that after having the same record as today's White Sox, the '06 Flubs then went 63-12, or 0.840 W-L% the rest of the way ...

Jimmy Cliff in the background singing "they Harder they co-ome ... " (wrt to the '06 Flubs of course)

Given that 2nd half, that '06 Flubs WS choke has to be one of the greatest of all time, easily comparable to the Prior meltdoown ...



OK I'll really stop now

kojak
06-30-2005, 08:36 PM
Interesting about the 98 Yankmees: At game 120, they were playing at an unprecedented .750 clip (90-30) but then they went a very mediocre 24-18 (.571) the rest of the way.

Of Coors, "rest of the way" was hardly relevant as they went on to win it all...

DSpivack
06-30-2005, 09:11 PM
which implies by the way that after having the same record as today's White Sox, the '06 Flubs then went 63-12, or 0.840 W-L% the rest of the way ...

Jimmy Cliff in the background singing "they Harder they co-ome ... " (wrt to the '06 Flubs of course)

Given that 2nd half, that '06 Flubs WS choke has to be one of the greatest of all time, easily comparable to the Prior meltdoown ...

OK I'll really stop now

I think it has a pretty good argument for being the biggest choke of all time. After all, they still own the best record of all time, a record which will never be broken [On a 162-game schedule, the same winning % would mean a record of 124-38].

Brian26
06-30-2005, 09:31 PM
I know it's early, but one can't help thinking about this crap....

The first round divisional series is best of five. I think I like our chances in a best of seven series more than anything. It doesn't really matter if we end up with 100 wins or 120 wins as long as we're hot going into that first round of playoffs.

MIgrenade
06-30-2005, 10:13 PM
I know it's early, but one can't help thinking about this crap....

The first round divisional series is best of five. I think I like our chances in a best of seven series more than anything. It doesn't really matter if we end up with 100 wins or 120 wins as long as we're hot going into that first round of playoffs.

I totally agree with the last statement. In 2000 the Sox were limping into the playoffs and it showed. Hell, the Sox lost on the day they clinched. If they continue winning that will help their confidence. I like their chances no matter what. I can't help think about how cool it would be for the Sox to make it to the ALCS. Not to jinx it...knock on wood.

FanofBill
06-30-2005, 11:16 PM
I totally agree with the last statement. In 2000 the Sox were limping into the playoffs and it showed. Hell, the Sox lost on the day they clinched. If they continue winning that will help their confidence. I like their chances no matter what. I can't help think about how cool it would be for the Sox to make it to the ALCS. Not to jinx it...knock on wood.

I think the biggest differences between this team and the 2000 WS team are that this team is more well rounded and that they are winning a lot of close games. And that, I think will be the biggest plus in the playoffs, it makes everyone on the team (especially the relief pitchers) used to pressure situations and ready for the big games.
So when the playoff comes and situations like last night 13 innings games come up, it won't faze anyone on our teams. In a way, I'd rather the WS win more games like yesterday than blow out games. It will keep them on their toes and be ready for the playoffs and world series.

kojak
07-01-2005, 12:32 AM
Any comparisons between the 2005 Sox and the 2000 Sox are apples and oranges. Simple as that. The two teams could not be more different.

But I imagine the FOCD (Friends of Clouds Dark) will be reminding us of the 2000 Sox playoff performance until at least Hallowe'en.

But this 2005 version will be doing a lot of things that no one here has ever seen before, not the least of which will be a franchise high for victories in a season.

Anyone here know how many that would take? :D:

Foulke You
07-01-2005, 12:41 AM
Any comparisons between the 2005 Sox and the 2000 Sox are apples and oranges. Simple as that. The two teams could not be more different.

But I imagine the FOCD (Friends of Clouds Dark) will be reminding us of the 2000 Sox playoff performance until at least Hallowe'en.

But this 2005 version will be doing a lot of things that no one here has ever seen before, not the least of which will be a franchise high for victories in a season.

Anyone here know how many that would take? :D:
Yeah, the 2000/2005 difference is huge. When the 2000 team won, they won big. They didn't play a lot of close ballgames. This Sox team seems to thrive on the close ballgames and hardly ever blow teams out. The '05 version seems more poised to go farther in the playoffs assuming they stay healthy.

ode to veeck
07-01-2005, 10:50 AM
The Sox franchise record for Ws was the last time they won it all, 100, in 1917.

fquaye149
07-01-2005, 11:52 AM
The Sox franchise record for Ws was the last time they won it all, 100, in 1917.

you're saying we haven't won 100 besides that?

That's disappointing:(

wildcat
07-01-2005, 11:59 AM
you're saying we haven't won 100 besides that?

That's disappointing:(

Nope. They went 99-63 in 1983, for a .611 winning percentage. There were other 90+ game seasons, but nothing over 100. The second-best winning percentage was in 1919, when they went 88-52, for a .620 winning percentage.

kojak
07-01-2005, 01:45 PM
The Sox franchise record for Ws was the last time they won it all, 100, in 1917.

The White Sox have never won 100 games, ever.

In 1917, they went 99-54 winning the pennnant by 8 games over Boston. They ended the season with a 16-game road trip, going 9-7. The Yankmees kept them from 100 wins by taking 2 0f 3 to end the regular season.

They also won 99 in 1983.

Hard to believe we have never cracked the century mark, eh?

wildcat
07-01-2005, 01:48 PM
The White Sox have never won 100 games, ever.

In 1917, they went 99-54 winning the pennnant by 8 games over Boston.

They also won 99 in 1983.

Hard to believe we have never cracked the century mark, eh?

According to whitesox.com, the 1917 record was 100-54, for a winning percentage of .649. I wasn't around to see it, but I tend to trust the official website.

kojak
07-01-2005, 01:51 PM
Here is The 1917 Chicago White Sox schedule (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/1917_sched.shtml).

I get 99

wildcat
07-01-2005, 02:00 PM
Here is The 1917 Chicago White Sox schedule (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/1917_sched.shtml).

I get 99

Well, I also get 99, but at the top of that page the record is given as 100-54. So everyone's been mis-counting all these years? There were three ties in the season. Does that count at all into the record?

wildcat
07-01-2005, 02:05 PM
Upon further review (I'm a little bored at work), it turns out that the 3-3 with Cleveland on 9/9/17 was counted as a win. I've yet to discover why, but that accounts for the 100 wins.

wildcat
07-01-2005, 02:08 PM
Just kidding... I'm actually VERY bored at work:

From http://www.baseballlibrary.com/baseballlibrary/chronology/1917SEPTEMBER.stm :

Sunday, September 9th
IN THE NEWS:
In Chicago, with the score tied 33 in the 10th inning between the Sox and the Indians, umpire Brick Owens forfeits the game to Chicago, 90, because of the 'dilatory tactics' of the Tribe. Chicago now leads the AL by seven games. The Cleveland players protest Owens ruling in the 10th when, with two on a no outs, he calls Jack Graney out on a close play. The ensuing argument delays the game ten minutes with several Indians rolling on the ground and tossing their mitts. When Chicago's first hitter, pitcher Dave Danforth, strikes out to open the bottom of the inning, Indian catcher Steve O'Neill fires the ball into CF, whereupon Owens calls the forfeit.

kojak
07-01-2005, 02:08 PM
Upon further review (I'm a little bored at work), it turns out that the 3-3 with Cleveland on 9/9/17 was counted as a win. I've yet to discover why, but that accounts for the 100 wins.

Maybe they rounded us up to 4 because we had a bunch more hits or something...
:redneck

skobabe8
07-01-2005, 02:34 PM
I think the biggest differences between this team and the 2000 WS team are that this team is more well rounded and that they are winning a lot of close games. And that, I think will be the biggest plus in the playoffs, it makes everyone on the team (especially the relief pitchers) used to pressure situations and ready for the big games.
So when the playoff comes and situations like last night 13 innings games come up, it won't faze anyone on our teams. In a way, I'd rather the WS win more games like yesterday than blow out games. It will keep them on their toes and be ready for the playoffs and world series.

But it CANT be good for the overall well being of WSI'ers everywhere. :thud:

FanofBill
07-17-2005, 06:08 PM
I know it's still early but I like to keep track of this and see how the WS are doing after every 10 games compare to these other teams. It's a moot point if they go on a loosing streak and don't win the world series but as long as they're winning I am enjoying the ride.


Games: W - L
1998 Yankees
90: 67-23
2001 Mariners
90: 65-25
1984 Tigers
90: 62-28
2005 White Sox
90: 61-29

elrod
07-17-2005, 06:20 PM
You should include the 1986 Mets too. They were better than the 1984 Tigers, with a 108-54 record. And for that matter, the 1995 Indians were one of the greatest of recent history too, even though they only played 144 games, finishing 100-44.


Through 90 games the 1995 Indians were 63-27. Through 90 games the 1986 Mets were 62-28.

What scares me is the 1978 Red Sox, who were 62-28 at this point, and "only" won 99 games, leaving them tied with the Yankees on the last day of the season. With the Wild Card they'd have made it, but with Bucky Dent it was all for naught.

Ben Lang
07-17-2005, 06:23 PM
I know it's early, but one can't help thinking about this crap....

The first round divisional series is best of five. I think I like our chances in a best of seven series more than anything. It doesn't really matter if we end up with 100 wins or 120 wins as long as we're hot going into that first round of playoffs.

I completely agree. For the few years the hottest team entering the playoffs always had the most success. Look at the 2002 Angels and 2003 Marlins, both went in playing the best baseball as wildcards and won the whole thing. We can't finish winning 3 of our 10 as the 2000 team did. We must maintain this intensity.

chisoxfanatic
07-17-2005, 06:28 PM
What scares me is the 1978 Red Sox, who were 62-28 at this point, and "only" won 99 games, leaving them tied with the Yankees on the last day of the season. With the Wild Card they'd have made it, but with Bucky Dent it was all for naught.

We must keep in mind that this team doesn't have the pitching that will go into deep funks. I highly doubt the Sox won't win at least 105-110 games this year, and that's even being generous on the "loss" side.

NSSoxFan
07-17-2005, 07:36 PM
We must keep in mind that this team doesn't have the pitching that will go into deep funks. I highly doubt the Sox won't win at least 105-110 games this year, and that's even being generous on the "loss" side.

Doesn't that feel so GREAT to say?

:smile:

tacosalbarojas
07-17-2005, 08:25 PM
To me the biggest difference between '00 and this year is health. All our starters were going down around us. Heck, we were talking about having to start Sean Lowe or even (gasp) Jon Rauch in a playoff game against the M's. The Rauch thing was pretty far-fetched, as I recall, but Lowe was a definite possibility. Even though it turned out the pitching we did have turned in fine performances against Seattle, I still think the injury situation cast a bit of a pall over that team as it headed toward October. Especially since Cal and JB had been such a huge part of what that team accomplished. Knock on wood and keep saying your prayers that we don't have such concerns coming down the stretch this year.

FanofBill
07-17-2005, 09:29 PM
Through 90 games the 1995 Indians were 63-27. Through 90 games the 1986 Mets were 62-28.

What scares me is the 1978 Red Sox, who were 62-28 at this point, and "only" won 99 games, leaving them tied with the Yankees on the last day of the season. With the Wild Card they'd have made it, but with Bucky Dent it was all for naught.

I know I used to live in NY when that happened, I think they were 14 1/2 games behind too, so until the WS is still 12 games up with 20 games to go then I'll feel confident. :D:

By the way, I won't include the 1995 Indians since they only play 144 games.

1984 Tigers--1998 Yankees-2001 Mariners-1986Mets----1995 Indians-2005 White Sox
Gs: W-L------Gs: WL------Gs: WL-------Gs: WL-----Gs: WL------Gs: WL
70: 52-18----70: 51-19----70: 53-17-----70: 49-21---70: 49-21----70: 48-22
80: 55-25----80: 60-20----80: 59-21-----80: 55-25---80: 57-23----80: 54-26
90: 62-28----90: 67-23----90: 65-25-----90: 62-28---90: 63-27----90: 61-29
100: 69-31---100: 74-26---100: 72-28----100: 68-32--100: 67-33---100:
110: 72-38---110: 81-29---110: 80-30----110: 75-35--110: 75-35---110:
120: 77-43---120: 90-30---120: 87-33----120: 79-41--120: 83-37---120:
130: 85-45---130: 94-36---130: 94-36----130: 87-43--130: 90-40---130:
140: 89-51---140: 100-40--140: 100-40---140: 93-47--140: 96-44---140:
150: 96-54---150: 104-46--150: 106-44---150: 98-52--144: 100-44--150:
162: 104-58--162: 114-48--162: 116-46---162: 108-54--------------162:
Month: W-L---Month: W-L---Month: W-L----Month: W-L--Month: WL---Month: WL
April: 18-2--April: 17-6--April: 20-5---April: 13-3-April: 2-2---April: 17-7
May: 19-7----May: 20-7----May: 20-7-----May: 18-9---May: 19-7----May: 18-10
June: 18-12--June: 19-7---June: 18-9----June: 19-9--June: 20-8---June: 18-7
July: 16-12--July: 20-7---July: 18-9----July: 16-11-July: 18-9---July:
Aug: 16-15---Aug: 22-10---Aug: 20-9-----Aug: 21-11--Aug: 21-9----Aug:
Sept: 17-10--Sep: 16-11---Sept: 15-6----Sep: 16-11--Sep: 19-9----Sep:
--------------------------Oct: 5-1------Oct: 5-0----Oct: 1-0-----Oct:

elrod
07-17-2005, 09:53 PM
The 1995 Indians might have played only 144 games but you can still measure up throw game #140. They finished with a .694 winning percentage, which is one of the best in modern history.

PAPChiSox729
07-17-2005, 10:20 PM
Well, I also get 99, but at the top of that page the record is given as 100-54. So everyone's been mis-counting all these years? There were three ties in the season. Does that count at all into the record?


I guess we will have to win 101+ to clear up any confusion.

:D:

FanofBill
07-17-2005, 11:04 PM
The 1995 Indians might have played only 144 games but you can still measure up throw game #140. They finished with a .694 winning percentage, which is one of the best in modern history.

I try to add more but I think that's all I can add across. It seems to mess up the rest of my tables. Any suggestions?

FanofBill
07-17-2005, 11:34 PM
Got it:

1984 Tigers--1998 Yankees-2001 Mariners-1986 Mets---1995 Indians-2005 White Sox
Games: W-L---Games: WL---Games: WL----Games: WL--Games: WL---Games: WL
70: 52-18----70: 51-19----70: 53-17-----70: 49-21---70: 49-21----70: 48-22
80: 55-25----80: 60-20----80: 59-21-----80: 55-25---80: 57-23----80: 54-26
90: 62-28----90: 67-23----90: 65-25-----90: 62-28---90: 63-27----90: 61-29
100: 69-31---100: 74-26---100: 72-28----100: 68-32--100: 67-33---100: 65-35
110: 72-38---110: 81-29---110: 80-30----110: 75-35--110: 75-35---110: 72-38
120: 77-43---120: 90-30---120: 87-33----120: 79-41--120: 83-37---120: 74-46
130: 85-45---130: 94-36---130: 94-36----130: 87-43--130: 90-40---130: 80-50
140: 89-51---140: 100-40--140: 100-40---140: 93-47--140: 96-44---140: 87-53
150: 96-54---150: 104-46--150: 106-44---150: 98-52--144: 100-44--150:
162: 104-58--162: 114-48--162: 116-46---162: 108-54--------------162:
Month: W-L---Month: W-L---Month: W-L----Month: W-L--Month: WL---Month: WL
April: 18-2--April: 17-6--April: 20-5---April: 13-3-April: 2-2---April: 17-7
May: 19-7----May: 20-7----May: 20-7-----May: 18-9---May: 19-7----May: 18-10
June: 18-12--June: 19-7---June: 18-9----June: 19-9--June: 20-8---June: 18-7
July: 16-12--July: 20-7---July: 18-9----July: 16-11-July: 18-9---July: 15-11
Aug: 16-15---Aug: 22-10---Aug: 20-9-----Aug: 21-11--Aug: 21-9----Aug: 12-16
Sept: 17-10--Sep: 16-11---Sept: 15-6----Sep: 16-11--Sep: 19-9----Sep:
--------------------------Oct: 5-1------Oct: 5-0----Oct: 1-0-----Oct:

FielderJones
07-18-2005, 12:24 AM
Your tables will look better with a monospaced font like Fixedsys or Courier.

FanofBill
07-18-2005, 01:40 AM
Your tables will look better with a monospaced font like Fixedsys or Courier.

Thanks.

soxtalker
07-18-2005, 07:32 AM
We've done terrific vs. the Central. However, we've got a bunch of difficult games coming up against the east and west. Those will be the measure of this team.

FanofBill
09-11-2005, 09:47 AM
We've done terrific vs. the Central. However, we've got a bunch of difficult games coming up against the east and west. Those will be the measure of this team.

Just to cheer everyone up, I've been updating the chart (just look up a couple messages). We're only 2 games off the mighty 84 Tigers. And we're 7-3 in September.

And after those bunch of difficult games, we're still 6 1/2 games up and the magic no is 15. I'll take that.

TommyJohn
09-11-2005, 10:41 AM
Just to cheer everyone up, I've been updating the chart (just look up a couple messages). We're only 2 games off the mighty 84 Tigers. And we're 7-3 in September.

And after those bunch of difficult games, we're still 6 1/2 games up and the magic no is 15. I'll take that.

Yes, but they play most of their games in the AL Central; and as everyone
who watches the East Coast Orwellian Sports Network knows, those games
really don't count.

Brian26
09-11-2005, 11:55 AM
Sunday, September 9th
IN THE NEWS:
In Chicago, with the score tied 33 in the 10th inning between the Sox and the Indians, umpire Brick Owens forfeits the game to Chicago, 90, because of the 'dilatory tactics' of the Tribe. Chicago now leads the AL by seven games. The Cleveland players protest Owens ruling in the 10th when, with two on a no outs, he calls Jack Graney out on a close play. The ensuing argument delays the game ten minutes with several Indians rolling on the ground and tossing their mitts. When Chicago's first hitter, pitcher Dave Danforth, strikes out to open the bottom of the inning, Indian catcher Steve O'Neill fires the ball into CF, whereupon Owens calls the forfeit.

Wow. That's bedlam.

Brian26
09-11-2005, 11:58 AM
Just to cheer everyone up, I've been updating the chart (just look up a couple messages). We're only 2 games off the mighty 84 Tigers. And we're 7-3 in September.

Note that none of those other teams ever had close to a losing month.