Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Joe Orr Road Rod wrote:
rogers park bryan wrote:
Yeah, whatever Im not getting into this. The Sox have been better post WW2. That's true.
I just think from the longview people look at the title droughts of the Red Sox, White Sox and Cubs and think losing teams.
But it's wrong unless you think winning 88 games and finishing second is the same as winning 65 games and finishing last.
Its not wrong. I would guess most people across the country dont care about the difference.
And you are picking a specific 50 year stretch and ignoring the other one because in your opinion it favors your team.
No. I'm picking a specific 50 year stretch because it's the most recent 50 years. Let's shorten it up to 1990-present.
Since 1990 the Sox have been over .500 fifteen times. The were .500 once and under .500 five times. Two of the seasons they were under .500 they won 80 games. Over those 22 seasons they only won less than 79 games three times.
Over that same stretch the Cubs were under .500 fourteen times,topping out with 60-some wins in many of those seasons.
Come on, Bryan.
Come on what?
You said the Sox have been competitive his whole life and that's not true.
Now you're cutting off the three worst years of FF's life
Yes, the Sox have been better since 1990
Overall, the Sox, Red Sox, and Cubs were failures for the second half of the century
And yes, I believe making the playoffs or just missing is competitive.
I dont think a team that wins 79 games and finishes 12 games out is "competitive"