Before the All-Star break I saw that the Phillies were about to hit the 10,000 loss mark. They achieved this last night (7-15-2007). However, before they reached this statistical milestone, I traded a few emails back and forth with a friend who is a Phillies fan. When I made mention of the statistic to him, he thought that the Chicago Cubs would have achieved the mark a while ago. Therefore I dug up the following statistics between the two franchises:
First Year in the League:
Cubs 1874
Phillies 1880
World Series Titles
Cubs 2
Phillies 1 (much more recent than the Cubs)
Franchise Win-Loss Record
Cubs 10003 Wins - 9493 Losses
Phillies 8808 Wins - 10000 Losses (according to MLB.com they were already there).
Years Above 500
Cubs 69 (8 seasons under .400)
Phillies 52 (28 seasons under .400)
Avg W-L Record (the number of games played vary by season)
Cubs 74.9 - 71.1
Phillies 70.7 - 80.3
It is hard to believe that the Cubs have an over .500 franchise record. However, they were really good in the late 1800s and into the 20th century. The Cubs are interesting, their lore is wrapped in not winning a pennant since 1908. That doesn't mean that they are losing every season. During the Mike & Mike show, on ESPN radio, it was referenced that the Phillies would have to have 17 seasons with a record of 116-46 to return the franchise to the .500 mark. Why was 116-46 used? Because this is the best season record recorded by the Seattle Mariners in 2001.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
While the Phillies have more losses, the Cubs are more associated with losing based on the long held "Loveable Losers" tag.
Though the Phillies probably have baseball's biggest collapse, 1964, the Cubs have always found such unique ways to lose. A billy goat, a black cat, blowing the 1984 NLCS, Bartman, etc. It's the way the Cubs have lost that sticks out while the Phillies have just stunk.
You hit the nail on the head with that one. It is too bad the whole Bartman thing happened. Not because it determined the Cubs winning or losing but because the whole thing seemed so cheesy. At least the old Giants lost because of poor plays (Merkle and Snodgrass)and not because of some fan, goat or home run hitting /hot dog eating ghost.
Post a Comment