 |
|
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2003 10:56 am
Post subject: Tigers 120 Loss Watch
Archived from groups: alt>sports>baseball>detroit-tigers (more info?)
|
|
|
The Tigers are sitting at 107 losses with 18 games to go. The face
the Yankees and Clements today. Clements did a great job against the
Tigers the last time they met and today should be no different.
Cornejo has had little success against the Yankees as well.
Looking ahead, I'm guessing the Tigers will lose number 120 at home
against the Twins on Sept. 25th. I'm assuming 1 win at home against
KC and 1 win at home verses the Blue Jays. The Twins will sweep them
in Minnesota.
However, there is some hope that they won't lose 13 more games. This
depends, of course, on the competition. Neither KC nor Minnesota can
get into the playoffs via the wild card route. They must catch the
White Sox and win the Central if they hope to get in the playoffs.
Right now Minnesota is only 1 game behind Chicago and KC is 3.5. Both
will be playing their regulars since they really need to win games.
KC is in the most precarious position and the Twins could be solidly
in first place by the time the Tigers meet them. Toronto always plays
us tough. If KC slumps, the Tigers have a chance of not losing 13
more games.
Slim is better than none.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
Public Restroom Graffiti:
REMEMBER, IT'S NOT, "HOW HIGH ARE YOU?"
IT'S "HI, HOW ARE YOU?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Aug 26, 2003
Posts: 37
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2003 12:39 pm
Post subject: Re: Tigers 120 Loss Watch [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"SkippyPB" <swiegand DeleteThis @neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:8l21mv45s104it3inr37as84guo1kct2f4@4ax.com...
> The Tigers are sitting at 107 losses with 18 games to go. The face
> the Yankees and Clements today. Clements did a great job against the
> Tigers the last time they met and today should be no different.
> Cornejo has had little success against the Yankees as well.
I wouldn't say that Clemens did a great job against the
Tigers last time. The Last time Clemens pitched against
the Tigers was June 1st. He was trying for win number
300 at the time. He threw six innings, gave up 7 hits for
a total of 6 runs (4 earned). Struck out 6, walked 1 and
gave up one dinger.
Now, that may not be a horrible start, but it certainly isn't
great in my opinion. Heck, it doesn't even qualify as a
"Quality Start", a feat I think it's a little too easy to get.
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 21, 2003
Posts: 181
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Fri Sep 12, 2003 1:17 pm
Post subject: Re: Tigers 120 Loss Watch [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 12:39:56 -0400, "All the News"
<boermac.TakeThisOut@river.it.gvsu.edu> enlightened us:
>
>"SkippyPB" <swiegand.TakeThisOut@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
>news:8l21mv45s104it3inr37as84guo1kct2f4@4ax.com...
>> The Tigers are sitting at 107 losses with 18 games to go. The face
>> the Yankees and Clements today. Clements did a great job against the
>> Tigers the last time they met and today should be no different.
>> Cornejo has had little success against the Yankees as well.
>
>I wouldn't say that Clemens did a great job against the
>Tigers last time. The Last time Clemens pitched against
>the Tigers was June 1st. He was trying for win number
>300 at the time. He threw six innings, gave up 7 hits for
>a total of 6 runs (4 earned). Struck out 6, walked 1 and
>gave up one dinger.
>
>Now, that may not be a horrible start, but it certainly isn't
>great in my opinion. Heck, it doesn't even qualify as a
>"Quality Start", a feat I think it's a little too easy to get.
>
> Chris
>
Aaargh. I hate people with better memories than me!! I had totally
forgot about the June 1 start and I even saw it on TV!
But still the Tigers lose to make the magic number 12 (more losses to
120). By contract the Twins beat the Sox and KC lost to the Indians
to remain 3.5 back.
Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-
Public Restroom Graffiti:
REMEMBER, IT'S NOT, "HOW HIGH ARE YOU?"
IT'S "HI, HOW ARE YOU?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Remove nospam to email me.
Steve >> Stay informed about: Tigers 120 Loss Watch |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 03, 2003
Posts: 50
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:35 pm
Post subject: Re: Tigers 120 Loss Watch [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"SkippyPB" <swiegand.RemoveThis@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
news:8l21mv45s104it3inr37as84guo1kct2f4@4ax.com...
> The Tigers are sitting at 107 losses with 18 games to go. The face
> the Yankees and Clements today. Clements did a great job against the
> Tigers the last time they met and today should be no different.
> Cornejo has had little success against the Yankees as well.
>
> Looking ahead, I'm guessing the Tigers will lose number 120 at home
> against the Twins on Sept. 25th. I'm assuming 1 win at home against
> KC and 1 win at home verses the Blue Jays. The Twins will sweep them
> in Minnesota.
>
> However, there is some hope that they won't lose 13 more games. This
> depends, of course, on the competition. Neither KC nor Minnesota can
> get into the playoffs via the wild card route. They must catch the
> White Sox and win the Central if they hope to get in the playoffs.
> Right now Minnesota is only 1 game behind Chicago and KC is 3.5. Both
> will be playing their regulars since they really need to win games.
> KC is in the most precarious position and the Twins could be solidly
> in first place by the time the Tigers meet them. Toronto always plays
> us tough. If KC slumps, the Tigers have a chance of not losing 13
> more games.
>
> Slim is better than none.
It is not the 120 losses that would make them the worst. It is the winning
percentage. The Mets were 40-120. Therefore if the Tigers finish 41-121 they
will have a slightly better record than the 1962 Mets. Very slightly. >> Stay informed about: Tigers 120 Loss Watch |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jul 14, 2003
Posts: 23
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:35 pm
Post subject: Re: Tigers 120 Loss Watch [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
gnork wrote:
> "SkippyPB" <swiegand.DeleteThis@neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:8l21mv45s104it3inr37as84guo1kct2f4@4ax.com...
>
>>The Tigers are sitting at 107 losses with 18 games to go. The face
>>the Yankees and Clements today. Clements did a great job against the
>>Tigers the last time they met and today should be no different.
>>Cornejo has had little success against the Yankees as well.
>>
>>Looking ahead, I'm guessing the Tigers will lose number 120 at home
>>against the Twins on Sept. 25th. I'm assuming 1 win at home against
>>KC and 1 win at home verses the Blue Jays. The Twins will sweep them
>>in Minnesota.
>>
>>However, there is some hope that they won't lose 13 more games. This
>>depends, of course, on the competition. Neither KC nor Minnesota can
>>get into the playoffs via the wild card route. They must catch the
>>White Sox and win the Central if they hope to get in the playoffs.
>>Right now Minnesota is only 1 game behind Chicago and KC is 3.5. Both
>>will be playing their regulars since they really need to win games.
>>KC is in the most precarious position and the Twins could be solidly
>>in first place by the time the Tigers meet them. Toronto always plays
>>us tough. If KC slumps, the Tigers have a chance of not losing 13
>>more games.
>>
>>Slim is better than none.
>
>
>
> It is not the 120 losses that would make them the worst. It is the winning
> percentage. The Mets were 40-120. Therefore if the Tigers finish 41-121 they
> will have a slightly better record than the 1962 Mets. Very slightly.
>
>
They wouldn't even be close to glory. The 1916 Athletics
were .235, I believe. I'm not even going to look it up. >> Stay informed about: Tigers 120 Loss Watch |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Dale Darrel Waltrip Richa
|
External
Since: Sep 20, 2003
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Sat Sep 20, 2003 6:01 pm
Post subject: Re: Tigers 120 Loss Watch [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"gnork" <gnorky DeleteThis @earthlink.net> wrote in message news:<6sJ8b.2005$UN4.1771@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
> "SkippyPB" <swiegand DeleteThis @neo.rr.NOSPAM.com> wrote in message
> news:8l21mv45s104it3inr37as84guo1kct2f4@4ax.com...
> > The Tigers are sitting at 107 losses with 18 games to go. The face
> > the Yankees and Clements today. Clements did a great job against the
> > Tigers the last time they met and today should be no different.
> > Cornejo has had little success against the Yankees as well.
> >
> > Looking ahead, I'm guessing the Tigers will lose number 120 at home
> > against the Twins on Sept. 25th. I'm assuming 1 win at home against
> > KC and 1 win at home verses the Blue Jays. The Twins will sweep them
> > in Minnesota.
> >
> > However, there is some hope that they won't lose 13 more games. This
> > depends, of course, on the competition. Neither KC nor Minnesota can
> > get into the playoffs via the wild card route. They must catch the
> > White Sox and win the Central if they hope to get in the playoffs.
> > Right now Minnesota is only 1 game behind Chicago and KC is 3.5. Both
> > will be playing their regulars since they really need to win games.
> > KC is in the most precarious position and the Twins could be solidly
> > in first place by the time the Tigers meet them. Toronto always plays
> > us tough. If KC slumps, the Tigers have a chance of not losing 13
> > more games.
> >
> > Slim is better than none.
>
>
> It is not the 120 losses that would make them the worst. It is the winning
> percentage. The Mets were 40-120. Therefore if the Tigers finish 41-121 they
> will have a slightly better record than the 1962 Mets. Very slightly.
The 1960 Mets' 120 losses is currently the most losses by a team in a
single season, right? Well, if the Tigers don't improve any, they
might beat that record by 4 games if they end the season at 38-124
(unless they won today). >> Stay informed about: Tigers 120 Loss Watch |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 30, 2003
Posts: 2
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 12:04 am
Post subject: Re: Tigers 120 Loss Watch [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
In article <75ffe67b.0309201701.6c8a0082 RemoveThis @posting.google.com>, Dale Darrel
Waltrip Richard Petty Rusty Awesome Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith
Johnson...Junior says...
> > It is not the 120 losses that would make them the worst. It is the winning
> > percentage. The Mets were 40-120. Therefore if the Tigers finish 41-121 they
> > will have a slightly better record than the 1962 Mets. Very slightly.
>
> The 1960 Mets' 120 losses is currently the most losses by a team in a
> single season, right? Well, if the Tigers don't improve any, they
> might beat that record by 4 games if they end the season at 38-124
> (unless they won today).
The team with the worst winning percentage since 1900 is actually not the
'62 Mets - but rather the '16 Phila. Athletics at 36-117 (that's a .235
clip). The Tigers need only 1 more win to beat that winning percentage:
if they finished 39-123 their WP would be .241.
Edward >> Stay informed about: Tigers 120 Loss Watch |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Oct 10, 2003
Posts: 230
|
(Msg. 8) Posted: Sun Sep 21, 2003 12:09 am
Post subject: Re: Tigers 120 Loss Watch [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Dale Darrel Waltrip Richard Petty Rusty Awesome Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith
Johnson...Junior"
> The 1960 Mets' 120 losses is currently the most losses by a team in a
> single season, right? Well, if the Tigers don't improve any, they
> might beat that record by 4 games if they end the season at 38-124
> (unless they won today).
Dare to dream! >> Stay informed about: Tigers 120 Loss Watch |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 08, 2006
Posts: 18
|
(Msg. 9) Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 2:43 am
Post subject: Re: Tigers 120 Loss Watch [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
The record really is 134 losses by Cleveland in 1899. That record is safe at
least for this year.
George Perry wrote:
> "Dale Darrel Waltrip Richard Petty Rusty Awesome Bill Gordon Earnhardt Smith
> Johnson...Junior"
> > The 1960 Mets' 120 losses is currently the most losses by a team in a
> > single season, right? Well, if the Tigers don't improve any, they
> > might beat that record by 4 games if they end the season at 38-124
> > (unless they won today).
>
> Dare to dream! >> Stay informed about: Tigers 120 Loss Watch |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Aug 22, 2003
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 10) Posted: Mon Sep 22, 2003 3:54 pm
Post subject: Re: Tigers 120 Loss Watch [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"George C. Ford" <fordlaw.TakeThisOut@accnorwalk.com> wrote in message
news:3F6E5FAA.796CF148@accnorwalk.com...
> The record really is 134 losses by Cleveland in 1899. That record is safe
at
> least for this year.
But the modern era is said to start when the American League was formed, in
1901. Even though the game was no different from 1899 to 1901, you have to
draw the line somewhere. So it's true that the Tigers are going to have the
most losses in the modern era.
>
> George Perry wrote:
>
> > "Dale Darrel Waltrip Richard Petty Rusty Awesome Bill Gordon Earnhardt
Smith
> > Johnson...Junior"
> > > The 1960 Mets' 120 losses is currently the most losses by a team in a
> > > single season, right? Well, if the Tigers don't improve any, they
> > > might beat that record by 4 games if they end the season at 38-124
> > > (unless they won today).
> >
> > Dare to dream!
>--
*****
Rob Stumpf, Esq.
Stumpf and Ginter, Attorneys at Law
Practicing Bankruptcy in NY and NJ
visit us at www.online-law-firm.com
or email rob.TakeThisOut@online-law-firm.com
Disclaimer: No email or newsgroup communication is to be construed to
establish any sort of an attorney-client relationship, is not legal advice,
and is not a replacement for the advice of a competent attorney in your
jurisdiction. >> Stay informed about: Tigers 120 Loss Watch |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Sep 23, 2003
Posts: 1
|
(Msg. 11) Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2003 1:38 am
Post subject: Re: Tigers 120 Loss Watch [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
"Robert Stumpf" <rob.DeleteThis@online-law-firm.com> wrote in
news:bknk1e$3remq$1@ID-200874.news.uni-berlin.de:
>
>
> "George C. Ford" <fordlaw.DeleteThis@accnorwalk.com> wrote in message
> news:3F6E5FAA.796CF148@accnorwalk.com...
>> The record really is 134 losses by Cleveland in 1899. That record is
>> safe
> at
>> least for this year.
>
> But the modern era is said to start when the American League was
> formed, in 1901. Even though the game was no different from 1899 to
> 1901, you have to draw the line somewhere. So it's true that the
> Tigers are going to have the most losses in the modern era.
>
>
There were also some unique circumstances involved with the record
of the 1899 Cleveland Spiders team that lost 134 games. The owners
of the Cleveland francise also owned a francise in St Louis. They
decided to transfer all the good players from Cleveland to St Louis
and send the not-so-good players from St Louis to Cleveland. They
abandoned Cleveland in order build a winner in St Louis. This practice was
known as "Syndicate Baseball" and was widely condemned. Such shennagians
made fans lose confidence in the intregrity of National League baseball
and aided in the creation of the American League as a major league.
While the record of the Spiders still stands as the all-time record, it is
customary to separate Modern-era baseball records from 19th century
records. >> Stay informed about: Tigers 120 Loss Watch |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in/Register/Password
