Re: Stats Gone Wild! Plus Triple-Play Bonus

In article 
<2783c876-9176-4ea6-b1e2-0028028c3ba8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
 "Richard R. Hershberger" <rrhersh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:

> D.F. Manno wrote:
>
> > The Phillies have lost 10,046 games, the most in the history of
s****ts.
> > They would have to win their next 1,171 games - more than seven
seasons'
> > worth - just to get to .500.
> 
> Actually, that 10,046 losses (10.047 after last night) is merely their
> record as a major league club, i.e. since 1883.  Almost entirely
> forgotten today is that they competed in 1882 in the League Alliance
> against the Metropolitans.  The Metropolitans were a significantly
> better team.  There are philosophical issues of what games one would
> count, but at the least there are seven or eight losses in official
> champion****p competition play that could be added to the total.

Could you expound on this? There's an 1882 Philadelphia team in the 
American Association that Baseball-reference.com says was called the 
Athletics. It lists no Philadelphia team in the National League that 
year. So who was the team that became the Phillies? What was the League 
Alliance?

Looking through the N.Y. Times archives doesn't help much. On July 18, 
1882, the Times re****ts that the Philadelphians and the Metropolitans 
played the 15th game of a series "for the champion****p of the League 
Alliance." It's re****ted the next day that the Philadelphians lost the 
next game between the teams, but the champion****p is not mentioned. Then 
there's a game re****ted on July 29 that also makes no mention of the 
champion****p series. 

Then in September and October the Times is re****ting on a 12-game 
champion****p series (An even number? What were they thinking?) being 
played for a silver punch bowl. On October 25 the "Mets" won 9-4 (which 
didn't stop them from complaining about the umpire who allegedly favored 
the home-team Philadelphians), tying the series and necessitating a 13th 
game. But there's nothing more after that.

<snip>

> > The Cubs have appeared in 10 World Series, the Phillies only five. The
> > Cubs have won two World Series, the Phillies only one. The Cubs have
won
> > 18 World Series games, the Phillies only eight.
> 
> Twelve:  it is sheer parochialism to ignore the 19th century Series
> between the NL and AA champions.

It's not parochialism, it's ignorance. I wasn't aware of those series. 
It doesn't help the Cubs much (and it makes the Phillies look that much 
worse) , since they lost to the St. Louis Browns 4 games to 2 in 1886, 
after tying them the year before 3-3-1.

(What's with the ties? The 1890 Series also ended in a 3-3-1 tie. Why 
wouldn't they play an eighth game to break the tie?)

Counting those, the Cubs have played in 12 World Series, still only 
winning two. They won 23 Series games.

-- 
D.F. Manno | dfmanno@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
"As societies grow decadent, the language grows decadent, too. Words
are used to disguise, not to illuminate, action: you liberate a city by
destroying it. Words are to confuse, so that at election time people
will solemnly vote against their own interests." (Gore Vidal)