Well, I don’t think they count 1994, its just a scrapped season due to the strike.
But, even if it did count, weren’t the Braves still in the West then, so the Expos might have won their division, but the Braves might have won theirs as well.
pat
You can call the Cubs losers all you want, but noone comes close to my Phillies as far as losing goes, sure they got that title in 1980, but they have more last place finishes then any other team. They have been so bad, George Will found time to write a colummn about their losing sometime last year. They find such interesting ways to lose, as well. (I wasn’t born yet, in fact, it was ten years before I was considered, just hearing the year 1964 in relation to baseball, makes my skin crawl. For those who have never heard, the 1964 Phillies needed to win one of their last 10 games in order to get to the World Series. Gene Mauch overpitched his two best pitchers, and didn’t win one game, yuck.)>>>>>
The Phillies are historically a Jekyll or Hyde situation. When they are bad, they are very, very bad, but they also had stretches of time when they regularly contended, and have been to the series a few times since 1945, wining it all once. There also was a time during the 80s, when the Phils contended for the Eastern Division title almost every year, and even won a few division titles to lose to the Western foes in the LCS. The Cubs, on the other hand, have basically just sucked for 55 years.
Statistics bear this out.
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”
<<He can always count on Bonds>>
Groan. Don’t get me started. Bonds can put on a show sometimes, but, he is certainly no stanger to choking big. Last year’s Wild Card playoff game against the Cubs. Last game ever at Candlestick. Bases loaded, two outs, eighth inning, Giants are three (?) down. Called third. Yeah, I know he was hurt and all, but he almost never comes through in the clutch.
Most impressive thing I’ve seen him done: Hitting the SF logo in the 98 All-Star game.
JMcC, San Francisco
http://members.tripod.com/~weirdstuff/index.html
“Hear the voices in my head, I swear to God it sounds like they’re snoring”
“He can always count on Bonds”
That was the quote that I was referring to. Damn quotes.
Dear Sox59:
Hello pot? This is the kettle calling. Yeah, just wanted to let you know – you’re looking pretty darn tan there yerself. 
Yer loving neighbor,
Beruang
Re: old NL Divisional alignment
I have to agree with SoxFan59 (horrors!). The Cubs-Cards rivalry would have been maintained in the NL West just as easily as in the NL East. I wonder if perhaps the answer lies in “competetive balance.” The Cards had won the NL title in '68, '67, and '64. The Dodgers had won in '66, '65, and '63. If the NL had split geographically, the two teams that had won the last six championships would have both been in the West.
Now, the rest of this post is really long and potentially OT, so if you want to bail now, go ahead. But all this talk of divisions and pennants got me to thinking – what would have happened if the NL had split along geographic lines in 1969?
So I dug up all the old standings. I went with the admittedly faulty assumption that each team would have had the same final record no matter what division they played in. (I know, the NL used an unbalanced schedule in those years. If the Cubs had played more games against the NL West, they would have sucked even worse than they did. But I am only willing to dedicate a finite number of hours and neurons to any hypothetical question.) I also discarded the strike year of 1981. I came up with some pretty interesting findings:
-
Only 5 of the 24 seasons would have ended with the same divisional champions. In the other 19 seasons, at least one new team made the playoffs.
-
The teams that “moved” (the Reds and Braves to the Eastern Division; the Cubs and Cards to the West) did not gain or lose that many championships. Take the Reds, for instance. In real life, they won the NL West seven times. Had they been in the NL East, they would have won six. They would have taken their division in 1974 and 1978 (instead of finishing second to the Dodgers), but they would have lost out to the Pirates in '72, '79, and '90. So they come out as a -1.
The Braves are -2: their NL-West-leading records in 1969 amd 1991 would have been good for only second in the NL East. The Cards and Cubs each would have gained just one extra division crown in the West (1992 and 1969, respectively.)
- The big winners in this imaginary scenario are two teams that stayed behind: the Mets and the Dodgers. LA would have benefitted greatly from not having the Reds in their division, and would have taken the West in '70, '73, '75, '76, and '91. The only title they would have lost is '85, when they would have come in second to the Cards.
The Mets also lose one title: 1973 (which is hardly a loss). But with the Cubs and Cards in the West they would have picked up titles in '84, '85, '87, and '89.
The only other team that comes out ahead is the Astros, who would would have taken the West in '79 had it not been for the Reds.
- The big losers are the two Pennsylvania teams. The Pirates would have lost to the Reds in '70, '74, and '75, and to the Braves in '92. The Phillies would have been also-rans in '76, '78 and '93.
Other teams on the losing side of the equation are the Padres ('84) and the Giants ('87 and '89, though they would have won the West in '93).
- In terms of “competetive balance,” however, the divisions-as-actually-aligned fare better than the geographic setup. In real life, the two NL teams with the best records met in the playoffs 16 of 24 years. Under strict geography, they would have only met 12 times. In real life, the average NL division race (oops! almost said “pennant”) was decided by a less than 6 games; in Geography World, it was almost 6 and a half.
And perhaps most damming, in real life, no one team ever won an NL division more than three years running. Under a geographic alignment, however, the Reds would have won the East 4 times in a row ('74-'77 and facing the Dodgers in the playoffs each time); the Mets six times ('84-'89); and the Dodgers would have taken the West six straight times ('73-'78).
- On the other hand, geographical alignment would have resulted in several tied races. In 1971, the Cards and Giants would have tied in the West; in 1982 the Phillies and Braves would have tied in the East; and in the remarkable strike-marred year of 1972, the Pirates and Reds would have been a half-game apart in the East, while the Astros, Cubs, AND Dodgers would have finished in a dead heat in the West. (The only tied race in real life, as I recall, was the Dodgers/Astros in 1980.)
Thank you for your indulgence.
Beruang - thanks for the work. Now explain to me how Atlanta, New Orleans and Charlotte, I mean “Carolina”, are in the NFC West. On second thought, don’t. 
CMKeller & Pricciar: 1994 was the first year MLB used the 3 division formant. TV people say the Braves have won 8 straight titles because they are lazy and don’t want to have to explain that the Braves have really won 3 straight NL West titles followed by 5 straight NL East titles and that no division championship was awarded in 1994 due to the great unpleasantness. TV people want to hype things up as much as they can, and they’d rather talk about 8 straight than 5 straight, even if it isn’t accurate.
As for hating the Braves, I’d rather hate the Yankees. It may just be marketing, but Skip Carey makes me laugh.
Dear Sox59:
Hello pot? This is the kettle calling. Yeah, just wanted to let you know – you’re looking pretty darn tan there yerself.
Yer loving neighbor,
Beruang>>>>
Its a friendly little rivalry, is it not?
If you look at my posts, you will see that I have not held out the White Sox as shining examples of baseball greatness (except for the fact that they have consistently and historically been more competitive than the Cubs). The White Sox are historically more in the same category as the Red Sox; generally decent, competetive teams that can’t seem to get over the hump. As I’ve said before, and the statistics bear this out, other than a few abborrent seasons here and there, the Cubs just plain suck. The Cubs have finished over .500 about 25% of the time since the last time they won the pennant (55 years). The White Sox, on the other hand, have had winning seasons 55% of the time during the same period. Its not stellar, but certainly disparate enough in context of my posts from the Cubs to not deserve any kettle/pot comparisons. Sure, we’ve had some dark days in recent history (Take Jamie Navarro – Please!!), but at least we’ve won a pennant in my LIFETIME!
By the way, thanks for the analysis on the NL division split history. Great job!
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”
PatrickM:
I’m pretty sure that Major League Baseball, after calling off the rest of the 1994 season and the post-season, declared the teams that were then tops in their division the “Official division winners” and merely said that no one would be declared League Champion or World Champion that year. (I’ll double-check at home; I’ve got the Sporting News Baseball Guides going back to 1988.)
Obviously, what the Braves and their boosters mean is that they won their division in 8 consecutive “Championship” seasons, i.e., seasons that are followed by post-seasons.
So to boost themselves up, the simplify their excellence to the point of lying.
I call upon all Montreal residents to boycott the Turner/Time-Warner monolith until he makes people recant the “8 consecutive division titles” line. Lord knows, Expos fans have had little enough to cheer about recently…and soon might not even have a team!
Chaim Mattis Keller
Right now they all seem bent on boycotting their own team, actually…
SoxFan59 –
Thanks for the kind words. And your research on seasons over/under .500 is likewise enlightening. We pay so much attention to superlative achievement, we tend to overlook superlative failure, which is just as fascinating. But more on that at the end of the post…
OK, here’s my perspective on the “friendly little rivalry” that has ripped our town in half for a century…
It is my perception that Sox fans hate the Cubs and Cubs fans with a visceral, tangible disgust that is more than just an emotion – it is a living, physical entity. They despise us with the kind of bile-churning hate one reserves for rapists, child molestors, and Republicans.
Cub fans, on the other hand, are much crueler. We don’t even realize the Sox exist. They are so far off our radar screen that when presented with evidence of their existence, we tend to respond as if we’d just heard of the Mongolian curling team. Oh, they have a team, do they? How quaint. Good for them!
Which only infuriates Sox fans more.
Which is largely the point…
But petty rivalry aside, I see your point, and I must agree. Though I think comparing the White Sox to the Red ought to gather some angry responses from Boston. They’ve made it to the Series four times in living memory, and I believe they’ve made the post-season more often than the White Sox too. (Though I confess I stopped following the world’s most perfect sport when they realigned the divisions.)
But, while I agree with your points, I must argue that they are based on a flawed premise. So the White Sox have won a pennant in your lifetime. What is so special about your lifetime? My father was born in March 1928. In his lifetime, the Cubs have won five pennants to your one. And if you add up the over-.500 seasons, the Sox may still be ahead, but the gap will narrow appreciably.
And what about my grandfather(1896-1967)? In HIS lifetime, the Cubs would have had it all over the Sox. (Except 1906.) Much to his chagrin. The secret skeleton in my closet – grampa was born and raised on the South Side and was a life-long Sox fan!
Say, want to start a new thread on “what was the worst team in history?” I’m away from my references this weekend, but I’ve been mulling over a definition of an “anti-dynasty,” and I want to see how my Flubs… er, Cubs… stack up to such legendary non-talents as the Phillies, A’s, Senators, Boston Braves, and the inimitable St. Louis Browns. Hell, the Houston Astros have been around 39 years and have yet to make it to the Series. If we could get a handful of different definitions of what it means to suck, we could have a lovely hot-stove debate.
Beruang: You have made my point exactly. You have to go back to your Father’s generation to get a Cub’s pennant. The Cubs have a generation and then some in the dust.
And, as any Red Sox fan will attest, what real accounts is World Series titles. In that category, sadly, both Chicago teams are tied at 2. The Cubs won both of theirs back to back in 1907 and 1908. The Sox won in 1906 (beating the … CUBS!) and 1917.
And don’t fool yourself. While the Cubs like to pretend the Sox don’t exist, I have never seen such a visceral, vile hatred for us Soxfans as I did during the 3 years of interleague games, in which I attended at least one of the Cubs/Sox games. Wow! Not even the Cleveland fans who pack Comiskey park (cause they can’t get tickets for home games) are as hateful and childish. Like so much of thier world, Cub fans can’t come to grips with how much they hate the Sox. You do tend to live in unreality.
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”
SoxFan59–
Of course I live in unreality – the rents are cheaper!
I dunno – I attended some “Crosstown classics” myself, and I don’t think fans on either side acquitted themselves with honourable sportsmanship. I barely got out of old Comiskey alive. (I also remember some Sox fans wearing T-shirts that said ugly things about their own players because they didn’t beat the Cubs badly enough…)
(Actually, the late Mike Royko noted that, as Wrigleyville yuppified, the Cubs fans softened. He complained that Sox fans were not being sufficeintly molested when they ventured to the North Side, as they had in days past.)
World Series victories are all that matter? I thought most of your arguement was based on “competetiveness” as defined by seasons above .500. But this is what I was saying – there are many ways to define an “anti-dynasty.” Sort of the Anna Karennina principle applied to baseball: all good teams are alike; all bad teams are bad in their own special way.
You want to talk about lifetimes? Fine. I was born in 1960. Neither Chicago team has won a pennant in that period. So I guess that makes us even. I have a cousin in his early 30s. Both teams have the same number of division titles – two – and the number of “competetive” seasons is probably fairly close. (I suppose one could give the Cubs the edge for making the post-season three times, if the wild card were’t such an abomination.)
And this is what makes this argument ultimately so inconclusive, and thus so fascinating. Every team has had good eras. Every team has had bad eras. (Even the Yankees went some 20 years before their first pennant.) However I choose to define my terms to make my point, you an counter with a different set of terms to support yout point. And vice-versa.
And don’t we sound ridiculous, fans of two hapless teams, arguing over who sucks more?
I have to heartily agree with your last statement, Beruang.
Of course, to be totally truthful, the Sox have won a pennant in my lifetime, but I was three days old when they clinched the pennant in 1959. I have begun to fear that the White Sox may be to me what Halley’s Comet was to Mark Twain. I’ll make sure to have enough life insurance the next time the Sox are in contention.
And you are right about defining the perameters by which to measure the greatness of ineptness of the two teams. I choose to look at number of winning seasons since 1945, because its the last time the Cubs won the pennant, and the record of the White Sox on a year to year basis during that era is quite favorable when compared to the Cubs. (As I said in another thread, the Cubs have had winning seasons about 24% of the time in that era, while the Sox have had winning seasons about 55% of the time). If you chose to define the time frame as 1921-51, the Cubs fare much better. Indeed, up until 1995, the White Sox held the record for longest time between World Series appearances (1919-1959, 40 years), the Cubs now own that record that increases with each passing year.
My point about the cross-town games was not to argue that Sox fans have manners, but that Cubs fans are truly no different, despite the Cub fan sub-culture that claims not to “care” about the Sox. I also miss Mike Royko’s commentary, but you should recall that in the late 1970s, Mr. Royko took the oath on Bill Veeck’s wooden leg and became a Sox fan at a time when he was disgusted with the Cubs.
I am intruiged by your concept of the “anti-dynasty,” and have begun to do some research into the teams we typically view as being historically awful. I don’t have my notes with me, but early returns show that for pretty much parallel periods of time (the 1930s through the 1960s), both the A’s and the Phillies were consistently the most miserable teams in baseball, and sustained it longer than any other team. Other contenders are the St. Louis Browns and the original Washington Senators. I also want to check on the Boston Braves and a few other teams. I’ll get back with the stats when I can.
SoxFan59
“Its fiction, but all the facts are true!”