PDA

View Full Version : Interesting Sox/Cubs Stats


NoShoesJoe
08-02-2006, 01:41 PM
I thought I would find out who is the better team statistically since the Sox's 1901 inception.

Since 1901 and through yesterday the Sox are 8266 W & 8062 L while the Cubs are 8258 W & 8119 L

The Cubs have had more 1st place seasons (about 12% to the Sox 10%), as everyone knows, but the Sox have had more winning seasons 62 vs. 51

The winning percentage for Sox/Cubs respectively is .506/.504 for 105.5 seasons.

In 1931 the Sox worst season, their record was 56/97 = .366
The Cubs, worst season (2x), 1962 and 1966 59/103 = .364

Lots of parity, interestingly enough, except for, the Sox won the WS last year! Priceless. C-Ya.

voodoochile
08-02-2006, 01:55 PM
There's actually a spreadsheet I prepared on this topic somewhere in the database, but the only one I could find is from 2003 so maybe someone else will have more luck looking for the more recent version.

NoShoesJoe
08-02-2006, 02:00 PM
There's actually a spreadsheet I prepared on this topic somewhere in the database, but the only one I could find is from 2003 so maybe someone else will have more luck looking for the more recent version.

Exactly what I did...:smile:

Chisox353014
08-02-2006, 02:02 PM
Those stats are pretty misleading because virtually all of the Flubs' success is pre-WW2.

samram
08-02-2006, 02:32 PM
Those stats are pretty misleading because virtually all of the Flubs' success is pre-WW2.

Actually, pre-WWI.

voodoochile
08-02-2006, 02:34 PM
Actually, pre-WWI.

They had a decent decade in the 1930's too, averaging 93 wins/season and I am pretty sure winning a couple of more pennants.

NoShoesJoe
08-02-2006, 02:54 PM
Yeah, Babe Ruth's so-called 'Called shot' was at Wrigley Field during the 1932 World Series. The Cubs were swept. Shocking.

Ruth called Wrigley a dump, in 1932. Funny.

Johnny Mostil
08-02-2006, 03:02 PM
I used VC's spreadsheet to come up with a different perspective on this here (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=71383), showing there's hardly anybody alive who hasn't seen more Sox than Cub victories . . .

Lip Man 1
08-02-2006, 04:19 PM
From 1950 on the Sox dominate every statistical category, from 'winning' seasons, to 90+ win seasons, to yearly record (i.e. who's better...)

Lip

jdm2662
08-02-2006, 04:24 PM
From 1950 on the Sox dominate every statistical category, from 'winning' seasons, to 90+ win seasons, to yearly record (i.e. who's better...)

Lip

And don't forget, 1998 for the Cubs doesn't count...

Britt Burns
08-02-2006, 04:49 PM
Does this include all-time post season results? I'd be interested to see how that shakes out. An 11-1 run last year should put us far, far ahead...

miker
08-02-2006, 06:01 PM
From 1950 on the Sox dominate every statistical category, from 'winning' seasons, to 90+ win seasons, to yearly record (i.e. who's better...)
Even attendance?

TommyJohn
08-02-2006, 09:16 PM
I thought I would find out who is the better team statistically since the Sox's 1901 inception.

Since 1901 and through yesterday the Sox are 8266 W & 8062 L while the Cubs are 8258 W & 8119 L

The Cubs have had more 1st place seasons (about 12% to the Sox 10%), as everyone knows, but the Sox have had more winning seasons 62 vs. 51

The winning percentage for Sox/Cubs respectively is .506/.504 for 105.5 seasons.

In 1931 the Sox worst season, their record was 56/97 = .366
The Cubs, worst season (2x), 1962 and 1966 59/103 = .364

Lots of parity, interestingly enough, except for, the Sox won the WS last year! Priceless. C-Ya.


Actually, The Sox have had far worse seasons than 1931. Their all-time
worst was 1970, when they went 56-106. 1932 was another stinko: 49-102.

TommyJohn
08-02-2006, 09:23 PM
Does this include all-time post season results? I'd be interested to see how that shakes out. An 11-1 run last year should put us far, far ahead...

Let's see for postseason:

Sox:
1906 4-2
1917 4-2
1919 3-5
1959 2-4
1983 1-3
1993 2-4
2000 0-3
2005 11-1
Total: 26-24

Cubs:
1906 2-4
1907 4-0-1
1908 4-1
1910 1-4
1918 2-4
1929 1-4
1932 0-4
1935 2-4
1938 0-4
1945 3-4
1984 2-3
1989 1-4
1998 0-3
2003 6-6
Total: 28-49

johnr1note
08-14-2006, 07:03 PM
Sorry to come late to this conversation, but I had to chime in.

Prior to 1947, the Cubs were one of the most successful franchises in baseball. From 1901-1946, the Cubs had an overall winning percentage of .556 -- only the Yankees and Giants had better overall winning percentages. The Cubs finished above .500 33 times in 46 years. During this time, the Cubs had 10 World Series appearances. Again, only the Yanks and Giants had more. (and only the A's, Cards and (surprise) the Red Sox, along with the Giants and Yanks had more World Series titles). Besides the inability to Win the big one (an overall 2-8 postseason series record) one could argue that the Cubs were an incredible success.

During the same time frame, the White Sox were just a little above average -- an overall winning percentage of .501, with 3 World Series appearances, and two world titles. the White Sox had 22 winning seasons in 46 years. That places them 8th best out of the 16 MLB teams during that era. Of course, one could argue that after the fallout which came from the Black Sox scandal, a dynasty in the making was lost, and most of the White Sox team's bad fortune occurred in the smaller time frame between 1921 and 1946. But comparitively, the Cubs were arguably the much better team overall.

But then fortunes for the Cubs changed. From 1947 to the present, the Cubs have had one of the worst overall records not just in baseball, but in all sports. The overall winning percentage is .467. with only 15 winning season in 59 years (only twice in that time frame have the Cubs had back to back winning seasons). Only the Rockies, Padres, and Devil Rays have poorer overall records -- but they are all expansion teams, and at least the Pads have won the pennant twice. The Cubs are literally the most futile team in baseball since 1947, if you take into account that by the law of averages, the Devil Rays and Rockies will eventually have more winning seasons over a comparable time period.

The White Sox during that time? Overall winning percentage is .509, placing them as 8th best of the now 30 MLB teams that would eventually compete during the years 1946-2005 (although until 1961, there would still be 16 teams). The White Sox had 35 winning seasons out of 59. If you factor out the late 60s and the 1970s, the White Sox would rank near the top. 2 pennants, and 1 world title. That's still 2 more pennants and one more world title than the Cubs during that same time frame.

I think we must keep in mind -- all the success the Cubs have seen happened prior to World War II. Someone in an earlier post tried to say prior to WW I, and if you consider the World Series record, that is true. But the Cubs had a record between 1922 and 1940 where they finished above .500 every year but 1925. During the 1901-1946 time frame, the Cubs averaged 86 wins per year on a 154 game per year schedule. The same win percentage in today's 162 game schedule results in an average of 90 wins per year. Imagine that -- having a team that would average 90 wins a year for 50 years? Well folks, the Cubs did that, prior to WW II. But since then, they average 75 wins per year. The Sox average in the pre WW II era on a 162 game basis is 81 wins per year; since WW II, its 82 wins per year.

The picture is clear, the Sox have been consistently good, just above average perhaps, with flashes of brilliance in eras like the 1950s, the early 1990s, and perhaps now. The Cubs were a brilliantly run franchise for half a century, and since then, have been the most inept run team in MLB.

cbotnyse
08-14-2006, 07:17 PM
I thought I would find out who is the better team statistically since the Sox's 1901 inception.

Since 1901 and through yesterday the Sox are 8266 W & 8062 L while the Cubs are 8258 W & 8119 L

The Cubs have had more 1st place seasons (about 12% to the Sox 10%), as everyone knows, but the Sox have had more winning seasons 62 vs. 51

The winning percentage for Sox/Cubs respectively is .506/.504 for 105.5 seasons.

In 1931 the Sox worst season, their record was 56/97 = .366
The Cubs, worst season (2x), 1962 and 1966 59/103 = .364

Lots of parity, interestingly enough, except for, the Sox won the WS last year! Priceless. C-Ya. :yup: :nod: :yup: :nod: :yup: :moonwalk:

Lip Man 1
08-14-2006, 11:20 PM
Miker:

From 1951 through 1967 the Sox outdrew the Cubs every season but one.

As recently as 1983 the Cubs organization was closing the upper deck at Wrigley Field due to lack of attendence.

Lip

NoShoesJoe
08-14-2006, 11:33 PM
Miker:

From 1951 through 1967 the Sox outdrew the Cubs every season but one.

As recently as 1983 the Cubs organization was closing the upper deck at Wrigley Field due to lack of attendence.

Lip


Ah yes, I remember that. Hah! We all remember Lee Elia's tirade!

PKalltheway
08-15-2006, 01:52 AM
Sorry to come late to this conversation, but I had to chime in.

Prior to 1947, the Cubs were one of the most successful franchises in baseball. From 1901-1946, the Cubs had an overall winning percentage of .556 -- only the Yankees and Giants had better overall winning percentages. The Cubs finished above .500 33 times in 46 years. During this time, the Cubs had 10 World Series appearances. Again, only the Yanks and Giants had more. (and only the A's, Cards and (surprise) the Red Sox, along with the Giants and Yanks had more World Series titles). Besides the inability to Win the big one (an overall 2-8 postseason series record) one could argue that the Cubs were an incredible success.

During the same time frame, the White Sox were just a little above average -- an overall winning percentage of .501, with 3 World Series appearances, and two world titles. the White Sox had 22 winning seasons in 46 years. That places them 8th best out of the 16 MLB teams during that era. Of course, one could argue that after the fallout which came from the Black Sox scandal, a dynasty in the making was lost, and most of the White Sox team's bad fortune occurred in the smaller time frame between 1921 and 1946. But comparitively, the Cubs were arguably the much better team overall.

But then fortunes for the Cubs changed. From 1947 to the present, the Cubs have had one of the worst overall records not just in baseball, but in all sports. The overall winning percentage is .467. with only 15 winning season in 59 years (only twice in that time frame have the Cubs had back to back winning seasons). Only the Rockies, Padres, and Devil Rays have poorer overall records -- but they are all expansion teams, and at least the Pads have won the pennant twice. The Cubs are literally the most futile team in baseball since 1947, if you take into account that by the law of averages, the Devil Rays and Rockies will eventually have more winning seasons over a comparable time period.

The White Sox during that time? Overall winning percentage is .509, placing them as 8th best of the now 30 MLB teams that would eventually compete during the years 1946-2005 (although until 1961, there would still be 16 teams). The White Sox had 35 winning seasons out of 59. If you factor out the late 60s and the 1970s, the White Sox would rank near the top. 2 pennants, and 1 world title. That's still 2 more pennants and one more world title than the Cubs during that same time frame.

I think we must keep in mind -- all the success the Cubs have seen happened prior to World War II. Someone in an earlier post tried to say prior to WW I, and if you consider the World Series record, that is true. But the Cubs had a record between 1922 and 1940 where they finished above .500 every year but 1925. During the 1901-1946 time frame, the Cubs averaged 86 wins per year on a 154 game per year schedule. The same win percentage in today's 162 game schedule results in an average of 90 wins per year. Imagine that -- having a team that would average 90 wins a year for 50 years? Well folks, the Cubs did that, prior to WW II. But since then, they average 75 wins per year. The Sox average in the pre WW II era on a 162 game basis is 81 wins per year; since WW II, its 82 wins per year.

The picture is clear, the Sox have been consistently good, just above average perhaps, with flashes of brilliance in eras like the 1950s, the early 1990s, and perhaps now. The Cubs were a brilliantly run franchise for half a century, and since then, have been the most inept run team in MLB.
Wow! Awesome analysis!:thumbsup: