The other 42

[AirScott]

Hawk and DJ have been talking about "the other 42," saying you're guarunteed 60 wins and 60 losses, but last year the Royals won 58 and the D'Backs won 51, and in 2003 the Tigers won 43. plus, in 2001, the Mariners lost 46, so shouldn't they change it to the other 72 or 82?

[SoxFan1]

Hawk and DJ have been talking about "the other 42," saying you're guarunteed 60 wins and 60 losses, but last year the Royals won 58 and the D'Backs won 51, and in 2003 the Tigers won 43.  plus, in 2001, the Mariners lost 46, so shouldn't they change it to the other 72 or 82?

Are you serious? :headshake

[Nokona]

YOU MEAN HAWK AND DJ AREN'T ALWAYS RIGHT!?

 

Who'd a thunk it?

[Whitesoxfan56]

most teams probley 90-95% win 60 and lose 60 every year...so thats a good theroy by hawk and dj

[YASNY]

If you can't win 60 ... you don't matter.

[Rowand44]

Wow, I can't believe someone made a thread about this. Anyways, Hawk also says there are exceptions to every rule.

[santo=dorf]

That rule doesn't apply to really, really, s***ty teams I guess.

[AngelasDaddy0427]

QUOTE(AirScott @ May 1, 2005 -> 02:24 PM)

Hawk and DJ have been talking about "the other 42," saying you're guarunteed 60 wins and 60 losses, but last year the Royals won 58 and the D'Backs won 51, and in 2003 the Tigers won 43.  plus, in 2001, the Mariners lost 46, so shouldn't they change it to the other 72 or 82?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Where is that dips*** sign with you need it? :banghead

[TLAK]

Hawk and DJ have been talking about "the other 42," saying you're guarunteed 60 wins and 60 losses, but last year the Royals won 58 and the D'Backs won 51, and in 2003 the Tigers won 43.  plus, in 2001, the Mariners lost 46, so shouldn't they change it to the other 72 or 82?

Since 1962 when baseball adopted the 162 schedule, and discounting strike years, the average team has won 80.835 games per year (rainouts). 1 sigma = 11.62484. So DJ should really say 'Hawk, your gonna win 46.12548 games and lose 46.12548 games. Its the other 69.74904 games that matter". Hawk could then say 'Yer durn tooten, partner, thats the best I've ever seen".

[DonkeyKongerko]

The rule works alot better if you say every team wins 50 and loses 50.

[ChiSox_Sonix]

Are you serious?  :headshake

 

I just found this response particularly funny...

[Yoda]

If you can't win 60 ... you don't matter.

 

True.

[witesoxfan]

If you can't win 60 ... you don't matter.

 

And the opposite pertains as well.

 

If you don't lose 60, you're a playoff team(except if you are the Giants from 1993, then you're just out of luck)

[SoxFan1]

I just found this response particularly funny...

That's my ™ line. That and "You want a cookie?" ™

Edited May 1, 2005 by SoxFan1

[JUGGERNAUT]

It's a retarded theory & I wish they would just give it up already.

A much better one is the 16 wins/mo. We finished April with 17 wins.

We are now +1. Minny is -1, & DET is -5. The rest are in trouble.

[YASNY]

It's a retarded theory & I wish they would just give it up already.

A much better one is the 16 wins/mo.  We finished April with 17 wins. 

We are now +1.  Minny is -1, & DET is -5. The rest are in trouble.

 

Oh hell, you just like your theory so you can throw stats out there. Win a third, lose a third and what you do with the other third is too simple.

[Al Lopez Ghost (old)]

The first time I heard this line of thought was from Tony La Russa, a few years ago. I think he used win 50 lose 50 and 62 others. My reaction was that it was typical Tony crap, in that it sounds deep and means nothing. If you say so what to it, you realize that there's no meaning to it. Saturday's game - we came from behind to win. Was that a game we were always gonna win - one of the win 50 or 60? Or was it one of the third category? And who gets to say which it was? It's just goofy.

[TLAK]

The first time I heard this line of thought was from Tony La Russa, a few years ago. I think he used win 50 lose 50 and 62 others. My reaction was that it was typical Tony crap, in that it sounds deep and means nothing. If you say so what to it, you realize that there's no meaning to it. Saturday's game - we came from behind to win. Was that a game we were always gonna win - one of the win 50 or 60? Or was it one of the third category? And who gets to say which it was? It's just goofy.

The moral of the adage is that teams shouldn't get too high over wins or too low over loses. Its a convienent way to put a tough game like the last one in Oakland behind you, and don't get cocky after a game like yesterday. Keep your eye on on Tuesday, its the only game you do anything about.

 

Another one I like: You're never as good as you look when winnnig or as bad as you look when losing. We saw both sides of this one last week too.

[Steff]

It's a retarded theory...

 

 

You would know..