PDA

View Full Version : White Sox tied for 10th in WS wins, lol


caulfield12
01-11-2006, 12:02 PM
I was looking at my White Sox annual calendar and was surprised to find that we were 10th among all MLB franchises in most WS wins, lol. Of course, we have had much more time than most teams to get those wins.

Not surprisingly, the Yankees have 26 wins and the Cardinals 9, but I was amazed that almost everyone below is in the 4-6 range of wins...and, in actuality, the White Sox should have four if you count the 1919 team (I know, it is worse than counting the 1994 White Sox as champions of their division when they were leading CLE and KC by only a few games in the standings).

What I had no idea about (maybe it is because I never cared about the Cubs) is that the Cubs were only 2-8 in the World Series. That .200 winning percentage makes the Braves in the 90s and 00s look good!

I can remember the exact statistic, but I also think the White Sox are 2nd or 3rd in overall MLB winning percentage (regular season) since the beginning of the 1990 season. I think we trail only the Yankees and Braves during that time, but because we are usually 5-7 games over, with a few exceptions, nobody noticed...except for the fact that we have never had a Top 10 draft pick since that 1987-90 run of studs.

cheeses_h_rice
01-11-2006, 12:06 PM
I was looking at my White Sox annual calendar and was surprised to find that we were 10th among all MLB franchises in most WS wins, lol. Of course, we have had much more time than most teams to get those wins.

Not surprisingly, the Yankees have 26 wins and the Cardinals 9, but I was amazed that almost everyone below is in the 4-6 range of wins...and, in actuality, the White Sox should have four if you count the 1919 team (I know, it is worse than counting the 1994 White Sox as champions of their division when they were leading CLE and KC by only a few games in the standings).

What I had no idea about (maybe it is because I never cared about the Cubs) is that the Cubs were only 2-8 in the World Series. That .200 winning percentage makes the Braves in the 90s and 00s look good!

I can remember the exact statistic, but I also think the White Sox are 2nd or 3rd in overall MLB winning percentage (regular season) since the beginning of the 1990 season. I think we trail only the Yankees and Braves during that time, but because we are usually 5-7 games over, with a few exceptions, nobody noticed...except for the fact that we have never had a Top 10 draft pick since that 1987-90 run of studs.

Do you mean "World Series games won" or World Series titles?

caulfield12
01-11-2006, 12:08 PM
Do you mean "World Series games won" or World Series titles?

titles...do not know the exact number for Yankee Empire, but it is well into the 100s, lol

Hitmen77
01-11-2006, 12:21 PM
The A's have 9 titles too (I have the same calendar :smile: ).

Yes, I noticed the same thing too. After the Yankees, there is a huge dropoff to the Cards and A's, and then like you said everyone else has just a handful of titles to show for 100 years (for the 13 other original franchises) of competing for the World Series title. I love baseball, but that Yankee dominance over the years really screws it up for everybody else. It would be as if the Harlem Globetrotters and the Generals were the NBA.

by the way, I was surprised to see that the Dodgers and Giants both have 5-12 world series title records. I wouldn't have guessed that they made it to so many world series and lost.

voodoochile
01-11-2006, 12:25 PM
The A's have 9 titles too (I have the same calendar :smile: ).

Yes, I noticed the same thing too. After the Yankees, there is a huge dropoff to the Cards and A's, and then like you said everyone else has just a handful of titles to show for 100 years (for the 13 other original franchises) of competing for the World Series title. I love baseball, but that Yankee dominance over the years really screws it up for everybody else. It would be as if the Harlem Globetrotters and the Generals were the NBA.

by the way, I was surprised to see that the Dodgers and Giants both have 5-12 world series title records. I wouldn't have guessed that they made it to so many world series and lost.

Mostly when they were still in NY and mostly to the Yankees...

SOXintheBURGH
01-11-2006, 12:47 PM
Wait.

Whoa.

What!?

1906, 1917, 2005? = uh... 3? 3 is 10th?

itsnotrequired
01-11-2006, 12:52 PM
titles...do not know the exact number for Yankee Empire, but it is well into the 100s, lol

Just for fun, I added up the totals. 133 WS wins and 1 WS tie (1922 series).

Throw in WS losses and we're talking about an entire SEASON'S worth of WS games. Yikes...

caulfield12
01-11-2006, 01:09 PM
The A's have 9 titles too (I have the same calendar :smile: ).

Yes, I noticed the same thing too. After the Yankees, there is a huge dropoff to the Cards and A's, and then like you said everyone else has just a handful of titles to show for 100 years (for the 13 other original franchises) of competing for the World Series title. I love baseball, but that Yankee dominance over the years really screws it up for everybody else. It would be as if the Harlem Globetrotters and the Generals were the NBA.

by the way, I was surprised to see that the Dodgers and Giants both have 5-12 world series title records. I wouldn't have guessed that they made it to so many world series and lost.

Heck, we might as well give Beane and the As the title already, right? I cant wait for the 2nd book for his new-and-revised comments on KW. Think he would like to have Cotts back now...or Freddie Garcia instead of Esteban Loiaza in his rotation?

In all seriousness, the book was written by Michael Lewis, who had some other really interesting exposes on the tech field, one about the beginning of the Netscape browser and the other called The Next Big Thing. By the way, hes married to former MTV VJ Tabitha Soren...who I always considered the smartest of that generation of MTV personalities.

ondafarm
01-11-2006, 01:09 PM
What I had no idea about (maybe it is because I never cared about the Cubs) is that the Cubs were only 2-8 in the World Series. That .200 winning percentage makes the Braves in the 90s and 00s look good!.

Yeah, the Cubs are 2-2 against the Tigers and 0-6 against everyone else. The only stadium they've ever won a World Series title in (Tiger Stadium) was built over a garbage dump.

EastCoastSoxFan
01-11-2006, 02:41 PM
Yeah, the Cubs are 2-2 against the Tigers and 0-6 against everyone else. The only stadium they've ever won a World Series title in (Tiger Stadium) was built over a garbage dump.
Did Tigers Stadium even exist in 1907 - 1908...?

itsnotrequired
01-11-2006, 02:43 PM
Did Tigers Stadium even exist in 1907 - 1908...?

Nope. It opened in 1912.

They played in Bennett Park (on the same location) before 1912.

Hitmen77
01-11-2006, 02:48 PM
Heck, we might as well give Beane and the A´s the title already, right? I can´t wait for the 2nd book for his new-and-revised comments on KW. Think he would like to have Cotts back now...or Freddie Garcia instead of Esteban Loiaza in his rotation?

In all seriousness, the book was written by Michael Lewis, who had some other really interesting exposes on the tech field, one about the beginning of the Netscape browser and the other called The Next Big Thing. By the way, he´s married to former MTV VJ Tabitha Soren...who I always considered the smartest of that generation of MTV personalities.

My comment was in no way an endorsement of today's Oakland A's team or Billy Beane. It was just a statement that the Athletics, like the Cardinals, have won 9 world series during their history - tied for 2nd among MLB franchises. This includes some titles back when they were in Philadelphia and the 3-peat the accomplished in the early 70s. I doubt Beane was around for those titles.

Corlose 15
01-11-2006, 02:50 PM
Nope. It opened in 1912.

They played in Bennett Park (on the same location) before 1912.

If I remember correctly from what I've heard, the first ever game played at Navin Field was overshadowed by a historic event. The sinking of the Titanic.

Corlose 15
01-11-2006, 02:52 PM
My comment was in no way an endorsement of today's Oakland A's team or Billy Beane. It was just a statement that the Athletics, like the Cardinals, have won 9 world series during their history - tied for 2nd among MLB franchises. This includes some titles back when they were in Philadelphia and the 3-peat the accomplished in the early 70s. I doubt Beane was around for those titles.

This gives rise to the question, if the A's were winning titles in Philadelphia and the Phillies only title was in 1980, why were the A's the team to move?

itsnotrequired
01-11-2006, 02:54 PM
If I remember correctly from what I've heard, the first ever game played at Navin Field was overshadowed by a historic event. The sinking of the Titanic.

Not quite. The Titanic sank on April 14 and the first game at Navin Field was April 20 (Detroit opened the 1912 season on the road).

I'm sure it still weighed heavily on people's minds though...

Corlose 15
01-11-2006, 02:58 PM
Not quite. The Titanic sank on April 14 and the first game at Navin Field was April 20 (Detroit opened the 1912 season on the road).

Ah, thanks. I just remeber hearing things here in 1999 with all the news about Tiger Stadium's last season that they didn't get the headline the next day, the Titanic did.

Tragg
01-11-2006, 03:56 PM
This gives rise to the question, if the A's were winning titles in Philadelphia and the Phillies only title was in 1980, why were the A's the team to move?

From 1934 through 1954 (year before they moved) they never finished above 4th. The Phillies were worse during most of that period but did win a pennant in 1950.

The Phillies also played in Connie Mack stadium; Mack never managed the Phillies, but managed the As for the first fifty years of their existence (pretty incredible).

caulfield12
01-11-2006, 04:07 PM
My comment was in no way an endorsement of today's Oakland A's team or Billy Beane. It was just a statement that the Athletics, like the Cardinals, have won 9 world series during their history - tied for 2nd among MLB franchises. This includes some titles back when they were in Philadelphia and the 3-peat the accomplished in the early 70s. I doubt Beane was around for those titles.

I was just being facetious. Tired of all the hype about Beane when it hasnt produced much of anything, like the Twins recent run of success.

No, Beane was probably just starting his career as one of the most overhyped five tool prospects in the history of high school baseball, I am pretty sure in Southern California.

Hitmen77
01-11-2006, 04:12 PM
Here is mlb.com's summary of teams' world championships. Unlike the calendar's "standings" (which go by W-L percentage), this site only ranks by number of World Series titles. Interestingly, this site does not group together titles from teams that have moved to different cities (for example, the Boston Braves, Milw. Braves and Atl. Braves are each listed with one title instead of the Braves franchise listed with 3).

Using this method, there are only 3 teams that have won more WS titles than the NY Giants or the Philadelphia A's (who won 5 each) - two teams that haven't existed in about a half a century! Is that pathetic or what?! And one of those 3 teams is the Red Sox, who of course have only won 1 WS title after 1918.

Also, the Sox calendar is wrong in that the Dodgers have won 6 world series, not 5.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/history/postseason/mlb_ws.jsp?feature=club_champs

GoSox2K3
01-13-2006, 04:45 PM
I have the calendar too and here are the WS titles ranked by wins:

NY Yankees: 26-13
Oak/Phila. A's: 9-5
Cardinals: 9-8
Red Sox: 6-4
LA/Brooklyn Dodgers: 6-12
Pirates: 5-2
Reds: 5-4
SF/NY Giants: 5-12
Tigers: 4-5
White Sox: 3-2
Orioles/StL Browns: 3-3
Twins/Wash Senators: 3-3
Atl/Milw/Bos Braves: 3-6
Marlins: 2-0
Blue Jays: 2-0
Indians: 2-2
NY Mets: 2-2
Cubs: 2-8
Angels: 1-0
Diamondbacks: 1-0
Royals: 1-1
Phillies: 1-4
Padres: 0-2
Astros: 0-1
Brewers: 0-1

I copied this from the Sox calendar, but the Indians total can't be right since I can think of 3 WS they lost ('54, '95, '97). So, I can't vouch for the accuracy of this list.