PDA

View Full Version : Flubs fail in quest for third consecutive winning season


cheeses_h_rice
10-01-2005, 05:56 PM
...and helped the Astros guarantee at least a tie for the NL Wild Card. (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=251001118)

PaleHoseGeorge
10-01-2005, 05:59 PM
And the Lovable Losers fail in their bid for the Flubbie Three-peat, back-to-back-to-back winning seasons. It still hasn't happened since 1972!

:roflmao:

TDog
10-01-2005, 06:07 PM
And the Lovable Losers fail in their bid for the Flubbie Three-peat, back-to-back-to-back winning seasons. It still hasn't happened since 1972!

:roflmao:

It won't stop Gammons from predicting a Cubs-Red Sox World Series for 2006.

soxjim
10-01-2005, 06:23 PM
Had to turn off Com Cast. Those fools were talking how close the cubs were. that next year promises to be huge.

Chips
10-01-2005, 06:37 PM
It won't stop Gammons from predicting a Cubs-Red Sox World Series for 2006.

:boston"The Cubs have a great young picthing staff coming back next year with Wood, Prior, Zambrano, and Rusch has proved he can do it, not to mention Greg Maddux should return, which is at least 13 wins. This team can do it, their lineup is strong with Lee and Burnitz and Patterson should be stellar next season. This team will win 116 games. As for my Red Sox, they are the best team ever, they will not lose"

PaleHoseGeorge
10-01-2005, 06:43 PM
The Lovable Losers managed six straight winning seasons from 1967-72. Before that to find a streak of at least 3 in a row, you have to go back to 1939! No wonder those idiots make such a big deal of 1969...

****ing losers, every single one of them.
:roflmao:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-01-2005, 06:51 PM
Most recent Flubbie Three-peat: 1972

1972 Ford Pinto...

http://www.musictap.net/DuanesPunkPitNotes/PitStopArt/ford_pinto.jpg

TornLabrum
10-01-2005, 06:53 PM
Had to turn off Com Cast. Those fools were talking how close the cubs were. that next year promises to be huge.

Close to what? The Brewers?

PaleHoseGeorge
10-01-2005, 07:00 PM
1972 kids show...

http://www.cfhf.net/lyrics/images/puffjim2.jpg

PaleHoseGeorge
10-01-2005, 07:04 PM
1972 popular TV show...

http://yahoo.eonline.com/On/Holly/Greatest/Facts/Images/s.family.jpg

PaleHoseGeorge
10-01-2005, 07:05 PM
1972 Olympic hero...

http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/images_pop/spitz.jpg

RadioheadRocks
10-01-2005, 07:07 PM
1972 kids show...

http://www.cfhf.net/lyrics/images/puffjim2.jpg


Ahh HR Pufinstuf... actually I was more of a Lidsville fan myself... "it's the kick-kick-kickiest!!!" :D:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-01-2005, 07:08 PM
1972 unsuccessful presidential nominee (pictured on cover of defunct news magazine)...

http://www.2neatmagazines.com/covers/1971cover/1971-Nov-5.jpg

PaleHoseGeorge
10-01-2005, 07:09 PM
The winner...

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/oliphant/vc007260.jpg

elrod
10-01-2005, 07:23 PM
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000000W5L.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Greatest rock and roll album of all time, and from 1972.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-01-2005, 07:33 PM
#1 single from 1972, Sammy Davis, Jr.'s The Candy Man...

(pictured here with Mama Cass)

http://www.casselliot.com/images/CassSammyDavisJr11-1-69Singing%20I%20Dig%20Rock%20And%20Roll%20Music%20 cropped.jpg

PaleHoseGeorge
10-01-2005, 07:44 PM
1972 prices...

Cost of new home: $30,500.00
Median household income: $9697.00
Cost of 1st class stamp: $0.10
Cost of gallon of gas: $0.36
Cost of dozen eggs: $0.52
Cost of gallon of milk: $1.20

RKMeibalane
10-01-2005, 08:10 PM
1972 prices...
Cost of gallon of gas: $0.36


Seeing this makes me want to throw up.

Daver
10-01-2005, 08:20 PM
Can anyone spot the ex Cubs fan in this thread?


:)

dcb33
10-01-2005, 08:23 PM
Seeing this makes me want to throw up.

Seeing this makes me want to throw up:

Cost of new home: $30,500.00





I wonder what the Cost of Cubs tickets was in 1972, back in the days before Wrigley Field Premium Ticket Services existed...

Hitmen77
10-01-2005, 08:38 PM
Seeing this makes me want to throw up.

Yes, but remember the median household income was less than $10,000. We weren't paying 0.36/gal on today's salaries. Plus those old "boats" from '72 got something like 8 mpg.:o:

Hitmen77
10-01-2005, 08:43 PM
And the Lovable Losers fail in their bid for the Flubbie Three-peat, back-to-back-to-back winning seasons. It still hasn't happened since 1972!

:roflmao:

You can compare that to the Sox, who are wrapping up their SIXTH consecutive winning season! :cool: Before that, we have 5 straight from 1990-94, 3 straight from 81-83, and of course 17 straight from 1951-67.:cool:

Ol' No. 2
10-01-2005, 08:51 PM
Most recent Flubbie Three-peat: 1972

1972 Ford Pinto...

http://www.musictap.net/DuanesPunkPitNotes/PitStopArt/ford_pinto.jpgHey, that's a picture of my old car!

DrCrawdad
10-01-2005, 09:03 PM
1972 Olympic hero...

http://www.nostalgiacentral.com/images_pop/spitz.jpg

Keep posting pictures like that and the site will be overrun with Cub fans...

:)

antitwins13
10-01-2005, 09:28 PM
It won't stop Gammons from predicting a Cubs-Red Sox World Series for 2006.



It's so sad, yet so true:whiner:

Lip Man 1
10-01-2005, 10:50 PM
Hitmen:

Depends on your definition. A better term is their 6th straight 'non losing' season. In 2002 they finished exactly at 81-81 after losing the last three games in Minnesota.

The last time the Sox had six straight 'winning' (at least 82 wins) seasons was from 1962-1967.

Lip

RadioheadRocks
10-01-2005, 11:11 PM
Hitmen:

Depends on your definition. A better term is their 6th straight 'non losing' season. In 2002 they finished exactly at 81-81 after losing the last three games in Minnesota.

The last time the Sox had six straight 'winning' (at least 82 wins) seasons was from 1962-1967.

Lip

Or you could simply switch it to ".500 or better seasons" and that will work just fine.

Brian26
10-01-2005, 11:35 PM
And the Lovable Losers fail in their bid for the Flubbie Three-peat, back-to-back-to-back winning seasons. It still hasn't happened since 1972!

:roflmao:

:whiner: :whiner: :whiner:

PaleHoseGeorge
10-02-2005, 08:48 AM
Hitmen:

Depends on your definition. A better term is their 6th straight 'non losing' season. In 2002 they finished exactly at 81-81 after losing the last three games in Minnesota.

The last time the Sox had six straight 'winning' (at least 82 wins) seasons was from 1962-1967.

Lip

Wow, Lip. Just wow... you had to work EXTRA HARD to find a negative spin on this one, didn't you?

The Sox have "three-peated" FIVE TIMES since 1972, the year the Flubbies last managed it. The Sox also have 16 winning seasons in that period to the Flubbies' 8. And as we all know, the Sox have hardly been a juggernaut in that period.

You are beyond pathetic for seeking out and highlighting negative bull**** about a team you claim you support. Pathetic... absolutely pathetic... you embarrass only yourself when you do this.

TornLabrum
10-02-2005, 08:51 AM
Wow, Lip. Just wow... you had to work EXTRA HARD to find a negative spin on this one, didn't you?

The Sox have "three-peated" FIVE TIMES since 1972, the year the Flubbies last managed it. The Sox also have 16 winning seasons in that period to the Flubbies' 8. And as we all know, the Sox have hardly been a juggernaut in that period.

You are beyond pathetic for seeking out and highlighting negative bull**** about a team you claim you support. Pathetic... absolutely pathetic... you embarrass only yourself when you do this.

No matter how you Cumulus Clouds try to spin it, 81-81 isn't a winning season.

Dan H
10-02-2005, 09:09 AM
No matter how you Cumulus Clouds try to spin it, 81-81 isn't a winning season.

And 82-80 is nothing to brag about either. Putting things in perspective, the Yankees just won their 8th straight division title and the Braves have won their 14th. I think it's time the White Sox begin a real winning tradition not just beat out the pathetic Cubbies.

TornLabrum
10-02-2005, 10:01 AM
And 82-80 is nothing to brag about either. Putting things in perspective, the Yankees just won their 8th straight division title and the Braves have won their 14th. I think it's time the White Sox begin a real winning tradition not just beat out the pathetic Cubbies.

Can I hear an Amen?

Ol' No. 2
10-02-2005, 10:05 AM
Can I hear an Amen?And a rousing Hallelujah! Measuring yourself against the Cubs is a pretty pathetic yardstick.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-02-2005, 10:10 AM
No matter how you Cumulus Clouds try to spin it, 81-81 isn't a winning season.

I wasn't counting .500 records.
:?:

And if some Sox Fans can't understand the magnitude difference in how much losing the Cubs produce over the Sox, that's their problem not mine.

:cool:

TommyJohn
10-02-2005, 10:24 AM
1972 Best Picture: The Godfather
Best Actor: Marlon Brando, The Godfather
Best Actress: Liza Minelli, Cabaret
Best Supporting Actor: Joel Grey, Cabaret
Best Supporting Actress: Eileen Heckart, Butterflies Are Free
Best Director: Bob Fosse, Cabaret

American League Most Valuable Player: Dick Allen
National League Most Valuable Player: Johnny Bench

White Sox go 87-67, 5.5 behind Oakland

World Series Oakland A's 4, Cincinnati Reds 3

Chicago Bears go 4-9-1. 24-24 draw with Los Angeles Rams is last tie in
Bears history

PatK
10-02-2005, 10:30 AM
Close to what? The Brewers?

*****!!!!! Post of the week!!!:supernana:

Lip Man 1
10-02-2005, 01:15 PM
George:

It wasn't meant as a shot, nor was it meant about any comparison to the Cubs...just that in my book 81-81 is not a winning season, it's a .500 season or a 'non losing' season. As Kenny Williams would say, 'it is what it is.'

I don't think an 82 or 83 win season is anything to write home about either but at least and this has always been my absolute bottom line, as you know from the conversations we have had over the years, it is a winning season. At least that is something to take some measure of pride in...it beats a losing season.

I just don't have the same respect for an absolute .500 season, I can't call it a winning season and was just pointing that out to Hit Men. I apologize for not explaining myself to him a little better if it upset you.

As far as comparing it to the Cubs, I could care less.

Lip

FarWestChicago
10-02-2005, 01:20 PM
George:

It wasn't meant as a shot, nor was it meant about any comparison to the Cubs...just that in my book 81-81 is not a winning season, it's a .500 season or a 'non losing' season. As Kenny Williams would say, 'it is what it is.'

I don't think an 82 or 83 win season is anything to write home about either but at least and this has always been my absolute bottom line, as you know from the conversations we have had over the years, it is a winning season. At least that is something to take some measure of pride in...it beats a losing season.

I just don't have the same respect for an absolute .500 season, I can't call it a winning season and was just pointing that out to Hit Men. I apologize for not explaining myself to him a little better if it upset you.

As far as comparing it to the Cubs, I could care less.

Lip:bs: :bs: :bs:

Bull****, Lip. Somebody said something positive about the Sox and you just HAD to come in with a negative spin. To paraphrase KW, you are what you are: an incredibly negative person who feels compelled to force his viewpoint on others. :rolleyes:

:dtroll:

Hitmen77
10-02-2005, 01:26 PM
What people were watching in '72:

http://www.bradyworld.com/art/photo.gif

SOXSINCE'70
10-02-2005, 03:44 PM
1972 popular TV show...

http://yahoo.eonline.com/On/Holly/Greatest/Facts/Images/s.family.jpg

A popular 1972 show making its' debut in January of that year
was NBC's "Emergency!" .The first season is now availiable on DVD.
It's great to see the early exploits of firefighters (later paramedics)
John Gage and Roy Desoto.And the mutton chop sideburns on
Dr Kelly Brackett (Robert Fuller) and Dr.Joe Early (Bobby Troup)
could give '72 Chicago athletes like Bill Melton and Dick Allen
a run for their money.:D: :D:

hsnterprize
10-02-2005, 04:04 PM
And if it means anything...I was BORN in 1972.

SOXSINCE'70
10-02-2005, 04:09 PM
And if it means anything...I was BORN in 1972.

I was 10 years old in 1972.

SOXSINCE'70
10-02-2005, 04:12 PM
What people were watching in '72:

http://www.bradyworld.com/art/photo.gif

FYI,your 1st photo of "The Brady Bunch" is from the 1969-70
season.Marcia Brady was a lot better looking in 1972.Especially
to this (then) 10 year old boy who wished she could babysit him
and his younger sister just once.:D: :D:

RadioheadRocks
10-02-2005, 06:43 PM
What people were watching in '72:

http://www.bradyworld.com/art/photo.gif

Hey... how about some Brady squares for our starting nine on Tuesday??? :D:

Lip Man 1
10-02-2005, 07:40 PM
West:

No....it's not worth getting into it with you again.

Lip

Johnny Mostil
10-02-2005, 07:56 PM
\The Sox have "three-peated" FIVE TIMES since 1972, the year the Flubbies last managed it. The Sox also have 16 winning seasons in that period to the Flubbies' 8. And as we all know, the Sox have hardly been a juggernaut in that period.


No, the White Sox haven't been a juggernaut in that period, but, as indicated, they have been competitive. Total regular season wins by team from Opening Day 1973 through Closing Day 2005:

1 NYY 2925

2 BOS 2821

3 LAD 2784

4 STL 2717

5 CIN 2714

6 ATL 2705

7 OAK 2702

8 HOU 2700

9 BAL 2676

10 SFG 2660

11 CHW 2631

12 PHI 2619

13 ANA 2585

14 KCR 2577

15 WSN 2570

16 NYM 2568

17 CLE 2558

18 PIT 2557

19 TEX 2542

20 MIN 2527

21 MIL 2498

22 CHC 2483

23 DET 2460

24 SDP 2459

Above excludes teams that didn't play on Opening Day 1973 (e.g., Blue Jays). Expos/Nationals shown as one total.

As shown, White Sox have ranked 11th of 24, and 5th of 12 in AL. I would have guessed lower for each.

And the Cubs--well, they're the Cubs . . .

GoSox2K3
10-02-2005, 10:20 PM
In 1972, the Cubs drew only 1.2 million fans to Wrigley Field.