Phillies lose 10,000th

[gonelong]

Originally Posted by cumberlandreds

I wonder what the Reds all time record is? Anyone know?

Dig around this place for awhile ... lots of cool stuff there, including the answer to your question.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/

GL

EDIT: Oops ... see that someone posted this.

[KronoRed]

Originally Posted by Reds Fanatic

They had this in the Dayton paper the other day. The Reds all time record is 9208-9161.

Wow, the Reds could fall below .500 next season if they really go for it

[Highlifeman21]

I'm sure many Phillies Phans will blame those losses on Michael Jack Schmidt.

And once he was gone, Bobby Abreu.

And once they got rid of him, Pat Burrell.



And I have a feeling Connie Mack had a lot to do with their record.

[nate]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

I'm sure many Phillies Phans will blame those losses on Michael Jack Schmidt.

And once he was gone, Bobby Abreu.

And once they got rid of him, Pat Burrell.



And I have a feeling Connie Mack had a lot to do with their record.

Don't skimp on 90's goats!

*John Kruk
*Jim Eisenreich
*Darren Daulton

and...

*MITCH WILLIAMS!

[Highlifeman21]

Originally Posted by nate

Don't skimp on 90's goats!

*John Kruk
*Jim Eisenreich
*Darren Daulton

and...

*MITCH WILLIAMS!

Neither of those 4 were the better, if not best players on the Phillies.

Therefore, they might have marginally contributed to the loss column of the Phillies, but not to the extent of Schmidt, Abreu or Burrell.

Rumor has it they boo Howard at almost a Schmidt-like clip now, so maybe the torch has been passed to him.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by westofyou

Yep, the worst run in the history, fraught with goats as lawnmowers, a crumbling stadium and the worse pitching ever.

And only the one World Series win, no?

[M2]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

And I have a feeling Connie Mack had a lot to do with their record.

Mack managed the A's, not the Phillies. The Phillies are without question the gold standard when it comes to pathetic professional sports organizations. Even when they've been "good," it's rarely been more than slightly above average. 90+ win seasons for the "original" 8 NL franchises:

Giants - 41
Dodgers - 34
Cardinals - 32
Pirates - 27
Braves - 24
Cubs - 21
Reds - 20
Phillies -11

Philly's in a league of its own. As WOY noted, six of those eight teams are above .500 for their franchise history and the Braves are only a hair below it. The Phillies are over 1,000 games below .500.

Roy's right that we've seen the best era of the franchise in recent history, but even with that the Phillies had only one winning season of 14 from 1987 to 2000. They had seven straight losing seasons from 1968-1974. From 1954-1961 they had six losing seasons and two .500 seasons. They've had 13 90+ loss seasons since the Whiz Kids ushered in their golden age. Every generation has seen an awful Phillies team.

Fans in that city ought to pray to the twin deities of Mike Schmidt and Steve Carlton for providing the Phillies for the 12-year run from 1975-1986 which includes the majority of highlights in franchise history.

As my father, a lifelong Phillies fan, has often bemoaned, the wrong team left town.

P.S. - A little know gem is that last season the Cubs broke the Phillies record for most consecutive seasons without a championship. It was a staggering achievement.

[westofyou]

And I have a feeling Connie Mack had a lot to do with their record.

William Baker is more like it.

[KronoRed]

Looking at the attendance numbers in the 30's and 40's both the A's and Phillies were usually dead last in each league, it's amazing they both didn't skip town.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by KronoRed

Looking at the attendance numbers in the 30's and 40's both the A's and Phillies were usually dead last in each league, it's amazing they both didn't skip town.

The Phillies were bought in 43 by a guy who had family money from Dow Chemical, he promptly (IIRC) hired Eddie Collins away from the Red Sox and instituted the Rickey System to their organization, making them the 4th team to follow it in the NL (Cardinals, Reds, Dodgers, Phillies eventually Pirates)

The new owners first act first act was to try to change the team's name to "Blue Jays." However, "Phillies" continued to appear on the team's jerseys.

[M2]

Originally Posted by westofyou

The Phillies were bought in 43 by a guy who had family money from Dow Chemical, he promptly (IIRC) hired Eddie Collins away from the Red Sox and instituted the Rickey System to their organization, making them the 4th team to follow it in the NL (Cardinals, Reds, Dodgers, Phillies eventually Pirates)

The new owners first act first act was to try to change the team's name to "Blue Jays." However, "Phillies" continued to appear on the team's jerseys.

That was the Carpenter family (with DuPont money, Dow's from Michigan) and they certainly did right by the franchise. Bob Carpenter proved to be the one bona fide white knight in Philly around that time. It probably helped that WWII was being fought and the Phillies were about to go up in flames as part of betting scandal involving the owner. It was a case of solid citizen stepping in to smooth things over during wartime.

The Mack family wouldn't sell the A's for another decade. By that time the Phillies had gone through a talent Renaissance and you probably can't overestimate the DuPont influence in the Philly area. They are royalty in that city. My guess is general opinion was that Philly was going to be a one team town and the DuPonts already owned one of the teams. Perhaps someone with some Scott Paper or Baldwin Locomotive money would have stepped in to buy the A's had the Phillies not just spent a decade establishing themselves with a DuPont heir at the helm. In fact, perhaps someone with DuPont money would have done it.

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by M2

That was the Carpenter family (with DuPont money, Dow's from Michigan) and they certainly did right by the franchise. Bob Carpenter proved to be the one bona fide white knight in Philly around that time. It probably helped that WWII was being fought and the Phillies were about to go up in flames as part of betting scandal involving the owner. It was a case of solid citizen stepping in to smooth things over during wartime.

The Mack family wouldn't sell the A's for another decade. By that time the Phillies had gone through a talent Renaissance and you probably can't overestimate the DuPont influence in the Philly area. They are royalty in that city. My guess is general opinion was that Philly was going to be a one team town and the DuPonts already owned one of the teams. Perhaps someone with some Scott Paper or Baldwin Locomotive money would have stepped in to buy the A's had the Phillies not just spent a decade establishing themselves with a DuPont heir at the helm. In fact, perhaps someone with DuPont money would have done it.

DuPont, duh.... one of the A's major issues in Mack's waning years was the battle between his son Earl and his second marriage son Connie Jr. But the worst battle was the one that Earl had with his other brother Roy, both took over the club the year after the Phillies won the NL, and attendance dwindled and they fought about what to do and eventually they had one choice, sell.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by M2

That was the Carpenter family (with DuPont money, Dow's from Michigan) and they certainly did right by the franchise. Bob Carpenter proved to be the one bona fide white knight in Philly around that time. It probably helped that WWII was being fought and the Phillies were about to go up in flames as part of betting scandal involving the owner. It was a case of solid citizen stepping in to smooth things over during wartime.

The Mack family wouldn't sell the A's for another decade. By that time the Phillies had gone through a talent Renaissance and you probably can't overestimate the DuPont influence in the Philly area. They are royalty in that city. My guess is general opinion was that Philly was going to be a one team town and the DuPonts already owned one of the teams. Perhaps someone with some Scott Paper or Baldwin Locomotive money would have stepped in to buy the A's had the Phillies not just spent a decade establishing themselves with a DuPont heir at the helm. In fact, perhaps someone with DuPont money would have done it.

Wasn't that about when Bill Veeck was trying to buy the Phillies in order to fill the roster entirely with Negro Leaguers?

[M2]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

Wasn't that about when Bill Veeck was trying to buy the Phillies in order to fill the roster entirely with Negro Leaguers?

Yep, though it's hard to separate truth from legend on that one. Landis certainly steered the team to William Cox (who then gambled himself onto Landis' bad side in a year's time). Whether Veeck really was offering more and whether he intended to stock the team with Negro Leaguers is hard to prove. Veeck said so, but he was a master of promotion (self and otherwise).

[westofyou]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

Wasn't that about when Bill Veeck was trying to buy the Phillies in order to fill the roster entirely with Negro Leaguers?

Yep, the Phillies owner (Cox) bet on the Phillies and lost the team, he was the one who despite being less then flush with cash was awarded the team by Landis.

A couple of years ago a guy wrote an article in a SABR publication about that incident, he claimed it was a myth. After he couldn't find any citations on it he pretty much wrote the piece as truth. Just in the past several months Jules Tygial wrote a paper about how it was indeed true and that despite the earlier lack of citations, there were actually some that were overlooked.

This was the second time in a few years that a SABR article was written to refute a prior one (the previous was the assertion that the Boston Pilgrims, Puritans was never used by any of the press during the first part of the 20th century... when it was indeed proven it was.)