PDA

View Full Version : Congratulations 90 Times


Lip Man 1
09-18-2005, 05:39 PM
It doesnít happen that often and when it does it needs to be noted and commented upon. With todayís win the White Sox have hit the 90 victory plateau. Regardless of how this season turns out, that is a remarkable accomplishment especially because the White Sox are in the process of converting from a power, station to station team, to one that is based on pitching, defense and team speed.

Congratulations to them for making this happen. In the last fifty seasons plus one, the 90 win mark hasnít happened that often. Here are the previous twelve times:

1954: 94-60
1955: 91-63
1957: 90-64
1959: 94-60
1963: 94-68
1964: 98-64
1965: 95-67
1977: 90-72
1983: 99-63
1990: 94-68
1993: 94-68
2000: 95-67

Lip

daveeym
09-18-2005, 05:46 PM
If that doesn't put alot of things in perspective I don't know what else will.

Corlose 15
09-18-2005, 05:49 PM
My dad is still pissed off about 1964. **** yankees.:angry: :angry: :angry:

Wsoxmike59
09-18-2005, 08:07 PM
My dad is still pissed off about 1964. **** yankees.:angry: :angry: :angry:

LOL now that's a great Sox fan for you! I remember my dad telling me about that season. The Sox dropped the first 10 meetings of the year vs the Yankees. I could still hear him saying "If they could've only won 1 or 2 of those games." :angry:

Always the bridesmaid but never the bride.

Anyhow, congratulations to the White Sox on reaching the 90 victory mark. 90 wins is always a nice achievement.

I have a feeling that 96 or 97 Wins are needed to win the Central. That's definitely attainable with 14 games left on the schedule.

Johnny Mostil
09-18-2005, 08:26 PM
It doesnít happen that often and when it does it needs to be noted and commented upon. With todayís win the White Sox have hit the 90 victory plateau. Regardless of how this season turns out, that is a remarkable accomplishment especially because the White Sox are in the process of converting from a power, station to station team, to one that is based on pitching, defense and team speed.

Congratulations to them for making this happen. In the last fifty seasons plus one, the 90 win mark hasnít happened that often. Here are the previous twelve times:

1954: 94-60
1955: 91-63
1957: 90-64
1959: 94-60
1963: 94-68
1964: 98-64
1965: 95-67
1977: 90-72
1983: 99-63
1990: 94-68
1993: 94-68
2000: 95-67

Lip

Other 90-win Sox seasons:

1920: 96-58
1917: 100-54
1915: 93-61
1906: 93-58
1905: 92-60.

Lip Man 1
09-18-2005, 08:27 PM
For whatever it's worth, White Sox.com has a story that says the 'magic number' for the Sox to clinch a postseason berth is now 10. That's not the division crown, simply a post season spot. How they have figured it, I have no idea.

Lip

SouthSide_HitMen
09-18-2005, 08:29 PM
Lets give props to the 1920 (96-58), World Champion 1917 (100-54), 1915 (93-61), 1905 (92-60) and World Champion 1906 (93-58) (the latter JR has still yet sprung the couple hundred bucks to replace their flag pole along with the 1901 AL Pennant Winning Team (No World Series until 1903)) 90 Win + Chicago White Sox teams.

18 Teams in our 100 + year history. Hopefully our young core will continue to give us these in the years to come.

:threadrules:

Johnny Mostil
09-18-2005, 08:31 PM
For whatever it's worth, White Sox.com has a story that says the 'magic number' for the Sox to clinch a postseason berth is now 10. That's not the division crown, simply a post season spot. How they have figured it, I have no idea.

Lip

Easy. Standard magic number formula applied to Yankees (second-place team in wild-card standings) rather than Indians. It is indeed 10.

sox1970
09-18-2005, 08:33 PM
For whatever it's worth, White Sox.com has a story that says the 'magic number' for the Sox to clinch a postseason berth is now 10. That's not the division crown, simply a post season spot. How they have figured it, I have no idea.

Lip

Simple. The Yankees have one more loss than the Indians. If the Sox only go 7-7 the rest of the way, the Yankees would have to go 12-2 just to tie. I'm not saying that I want the Sox to lose the division, but considering the Indians have seven more games against the Royals/Devil Rays, let's just get as many wins as possible, and take what we get. The Indians deserve a lot of credit more than us bashing the Sox.

Johnny Mostil
09-18-2005, 08:37 PM
Simple. The Yankees have one more loss than the Indians. If the Sox only go 7-7 the rest of the way, the Yankees would have to go 12-2 just to tie. I'm not saying that I want the Sox to lose the division, but considering the Indians have seven more games against the Royals/Devil Rays, let's just get as many wins as possible, and take what we get. The Indians deserve a lot of credit more than us bashing the Sox.

Something else I just remembered--the Yanks have to play the Bosox three times (and the A's play the Angels four times). So I'm thinking th effective number is nine or lower, though I'm not going to do the math just yet . . .

jfinsocal
09-18-2005, 08:42 PM
It's not entirely that simple. For example, Oakland is still in the wildcard race. There are scenarios where the Sox and Yankees each lose 11 games for example and the A's win the WC.

It's really not worth worrying about. Take care of business one day at a time and good things will hapen.

wassagstdu
09-18-2005, 08:48 PM
The Sox are (still) having a great season. I don't understand all of this talk about "blowing" a 15-game lead (or 12 of it so far). The Sox haven't blown anything, they haven't choked, and they haven't collapsed under pressure. They haven't played as well as the first half (duh) but they have played .500 ball in the second half (and for not-too-mysterious reasons having to do with the demise of the running game with Pods' injury, in my opinion). Meanwhile, Cleveland has set a second half pace in the same caliber as the Sox' first half. The Sox haven't given anything away, the Indians have just been good.

We don't know if the Sox will be able to kick it up a notch and beat this hot Indians team, but if not, it will be to the Indians' credit, not the Sox' shame. The Sox are not going to give them anything, and I happen to think they will cool the Indians off.

I think maybe the Sox are playing not to lose, rather than playing to win, partly because of all the talk about collapse and blowing the 15 game lead and making history, and blah blah blah. Losing to this hot Indians team would be sad but not shameful. Beating them, even while struggling a bit more than in the unreal first half, would be a proud accomplishment on top of a great season.

DrCrawdad
09-18-2005, 08:54 PM
My dad is still pissed off about 1964. **** yankees.:angry: :angry: :angry:

My dad was a HUGE Sox fan. I was born in '64,
no wonder my dad didn't love me...

DannyCaterFan
09-18-2005, 09:33 PM
I was just a young lad of 12 in 1964, but I was already a huge Sox fan. If i remember right that was the year we closed out the season winning 9 of the last 10 games. Unfortunately, the Yankees won 10 in a row and we were beat out by 1 game with 98 wins. I felt terrible, but not as bad as in 67 when we lost the last 5 games of the season and lost our lead while playing the 9th and 10th place teams (A's and Senators) :angry: :angry:

TornLabrum
09-18-2005, 09:49 PM
I was just a young lad of 12 in 1964, but I was already a huge Sox fan. If i remember right that was the year we closed out the season winning 9 of the last 10 games. Unfortunately, the Yankees won 10 in a row and we were beat out by 1 game with 98 wins. I felt terrible, but not as bad as in 67 when we lost the last 5 games of the season and lost our lead while playing the 9th and 10th place teams (A's and Senators) :angry: :angry:

Yeah, I didn't feel as bad in '64 either because we were chasing the Yankees that year. In '67 we had the lead much of the summer and blew it.

Lip Man 1
09-18-2005, 09:50 PM
Danny:

The Sox closed the season winning nine in a row, unfortunately when they started their streak on September 23rd they trailed New York by four games. The Yanks went 8-4 to finish it up and clinched the pennant on the next to last day of the year when they beat Cleveland 8-3.

To little, to late. The Sox players from that team that I have spoken with (Peters, Martin, Horlen, Ward) all told me they were sure that Cleveland would win at least a game in that series when it counted and maybe two. Instead they won the last game of the season when it was already over.

Also a point of clarification about 1967. When the Sox took the field for the DH with the A's they actually trailed Minnesota by a game, they weren't leading the league at the close of play on Tuesday.

That so-called Sox fan, doofus Mike North spouted the same lunacy when he was on Chicago Tribune Live. That doofus said all the Sox had to do 'was win one game to take the pennant....' And that moron wants to be on the radio broadcasts?

The Sox had the schedule in their favor because they were playing the bottom feeders while teams like the Twins and Red Sox closed out against each other, but as we all found out, it wasn't a 'chip shot.'

Lip

rwcescato
09-18-2005, 11:56 PM
Lets give props to the 1920 (96-58), World Champion 1917 (100-54), 1915 (93-61), 1905 (92-60) and World Champion 1906 (93-58) (the latter JR has still yet sprung the couple hundred bucks to replace their flag pole along with the 1901 AL Pennant Winning Team (No World Series until 1903)) 90 Win + Chicago White Sox teams.

18 Teams in our 100 + year history. Hopefully our young core will continue to give us these in the years to come.

:threadrules:




Unfortunately we always think that it will happen at least 2 years in a row and it usually takes 10 years to happen again. This time it was only 5 years so maybe there is a chance. Congrats Sox and lets get to that 100 victory mark and be red hot going into October.
GO SOX!!!!
Rich

SouthSide_HitMen
09-19-2005, 12:14 AM
That so-called Sox fan, doofus Mike North spouted the same lunacy when he was on Chicago Tribune Live. That doofus said all the Sox had to do 'was win one game to take the pennant....' And that moron wants to be on the radio broadcasts?

The Sox finished three back. Even my 1 year old niece knows the difference between 1 and 3 (especially when it comes to spoons of ice cream).

Lip Man 1
09-19-2005, 01:51 PM
My friend Bob Vanderberg of the Tribune responded to my 'congratulations' e-mail that I sent him. As many of you know he is a Sox historian and author. I thought I would share it with you:

"In that same period, I wonder how many times the celebrated Cubs have won 90?

Let's check:
four times..

1969: 92-70
1984: 96-65
1989: 93-69
1998: 90-73 (actually, 89-73, but won one-game playoff with Giants for wild card)

something else: in the last 6 seasons, the Cubs have finished 30, 30, 5, 30 and 16 games behind and one game ahead ....... an average of 18 1/2 games behind.... In that same time, they have averaged 2,858,951 in home attendance!

Amazing."

Lip

beckett21
09-19-2005, 02:08 PM
Great thread, Lip. Helps to put things in their proper perspective. This is a special season, regardless of the outcome.

For me, I was born in '70 so I consider the '77 team the one that made me a Sox fan. That is the first season I remember vividly. Fortunately I did not have to suffer through the earlier heartbreaking seasons. All the more credit to those of you who did.

Hopefully this season will erase all of those painful memories for all Sox fans. Keep the faith. :smile:

santo=dorf
09-19-2005, 02:17 PM
My friend Bob Vanderberg of the Tribune responded to my 'congratulations' e-mail that I sent him. As many of you know he is a Sox historian and author. I thought I would share it with you:

"In that same period, I wonder how many times the celebrated Cubs have won 90?

Let's check:
four times..

1969: 92-70
1984: 96-65
1989: 93-69
1998: 90-73 (actually, 89-73, but won one-game playoff with Giants for wild card)

something else: in the last 6 seasons, the Cubs have finished 30, 30, 5, 30 and 16 games behind and one game ahead ....... an average of 18 1/2 games behind.... In that same time, they have averaged 2,858,951 in home attendance!

Amazing."

Lip
:knuehttps://subscribe.chicagotribune.com/UnitedWay/mcgrath.jpg
"Well now Bob will know who to thank after he receives his pink slip today."

Hangar18
09-19-2005, 02:25 PM
say Lip, in my book 1998 DOESNT COUNT. Those jamokes think that playing 163 games counts for something. If it wasnt for the stumbling lame SF Giants in 98 choking down the stretch, that game never wouldve happened. Who was the mgr of those giants? dusty baker

maurice
09-19-2005, 03:30 PM
Are you sure the Sox have 90 wins? It can't be true, because I didn't see any mention of it in the articles in today's Cub-Times or Cubune.
:angry:

Here is the list of every team in MLB who currently has more than 87 wins:
Chicago White Sox (90 wins)
St. Louis Cardinals (95 wins)

DrCrawdad
09-19-2005, 08:27 PM
My friend Bob Vanderberg of the Tribune responded to my 'congratulations' e-mail that I sent him. As many of you know he is a Sox historian and author. I thought I would share it with you:

"In that same period, I wonder how many times the celebrated Cubs have won 90?

Let's check:
four times..

1969: 92-70
1984: 96-65
1989: 93-69
1998: 90-73 (actually, 89-73, but won one-game playoff with Giants for wild card)

something else: in the last 6 seasons, the Cubs have finished 30, 30, 5, 30 and 16 games behind and one game ahead ....... an average of 18 1/2 games behind.... In that same time, they have averaged 2,858,951 in home attendance!

Amazing."

Lip

Here's the question I like to pose to Cub fans, ones who think the Cubs have been better than the Sox and cursed:

In the last 50 years how many times have the Cubs/Sox won 90+ and NOT gone into the post-season?