yh Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Nice to see a departure from a typical T-shirt and something classic baseball: the 3/4 shirt! I think the actual style is called "raglan sleeved shirt."No word on whether this was named for Herb Raglan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernd Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 What's the image inside the "NL WEST CHAMPIONS"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Somebody had to post it, might as well be me. I tip my cap to the Sox for getting it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kj Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 They should make a cubs one that says "Nearly 100 Years of Crap" Many years ago, I saw a great t-shirt:Great Chicago Disasters:1. The Fire2. The Flood3. The CubsI figured it was "The Blackhawks" away from being perfect. Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop! KJ Branded | Behance portfolio POTD 2013-08-22 On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said: When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kj Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 Nice to see a departure from a typical T-shirt and something classic baseball: the 3/4 shirt! I think the actual style is called "raglan sleeved shirt."No word on whether this was named for Herb Raglan. HERBIE! (Couldn't find a Blues picture.) Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop! KJ Branded | Behance portfolio POTD 2013-08-22 On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said: When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DEAD! Posted September 29, 2005 Share Posted September 29, 2005 They should make a cubs one that says "Nearly 100 Years of Crap" Many years ago, I saw a great t-shirt:Great Chicago Disasters:1. The Fire2. The Flood3. The CubsI figured it was "The Blackhawks" away from being perfect. Well it's a shame Chicago has the Bears instead of the Cardinals.... I saw, I came, I left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
philly97flyer Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 They should make a cubs one that says "Nearly 100 Years of Crap" Many years ago, I saw a great t-shirt:Great Chicago Disasters:1. The Fire2. The Flood3. The CubsI figured it was "The Blackhawks" away from being perfect. Well it's a shame Chicago has the Bears instead of the Cardinals.... A shame? The Bears suck too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-kj Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 For the level of suckitude that the Bears achieve, they can never touch the depths to which the Cardinals sink. Buy some t-shirts and stuff at KJ Shop! KJ Branded | Behance portfolio POTD 2013-08-22 On 7/14/2012 at 2:20 AM, tajmccall said: When it comes to style, ya'll really should listen to Kev. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cujo Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Somebody had to post it, might as well be me. I tip my cap to the Sox for getting it done. News Flash: The Sox havn't clinched yet. MLB screwed up by letting them celebrate a day early, so don't tip your hat just yet. We may still get to see the Indians Championship shirts if the White Sox slip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Sox Clinched. They have the season series over the Tribe. Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurricaneDavid Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 News Flash: The Sox havn't clinched yet. MLB screwed up by letting them celebrate a day early, so don't tip your hat just yet. Yeah, I'm sure YOU know more about when teams clinch than MLB does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mings Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 News Flash: The Sox havn't clinched yet. MLB screwed up by letting them celebrate a day early, so don't tip your hat just yet. Yeah, I'm sure YOU know more about when teams clinch than MLB does. Sounds like a couple people I know from work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CubsFanBudMan Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I don't know how many people I've explained this to, but it's understandable. The magic number I grew up with doesn't work in a world with tiebreakers.Sox at worst 96-66... Indians at best 96-66. Sox won season series 11-5 (with 3 to go -- 11-8 at worst). If Indians sweep and end up with 96, they are good enough to make the playoffs, and because the Yankees and Red Sox are playing each other this weekend, they can't both make it to 96. If the Indians could be eliminated when tied, things would be different -- a one-game playoff would be needed. (Say, if the Yanks and Red Sox had more than 100 wins.)So when two tied teams make the playoffs, they use tiebreakers instead of one-game playoffs to determine champs. Sox are champs. It's true. No one screwed up. For reference, see Astros-Cardinals in 2001 NL Central. Cards put up a banner that year claiming "co-champions" but that's not recognized by MLB. No such thing. The Astros won the NLC in '01 because the Cards won the wild card. It shorts a team, yes, but they don't want a one-game playoff to determine the division title when the pitching rotation could get screwed up and cost them a WS title. (although the home-field advantage could cost them, too...)Bottom line, Sox won the Central. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubbymark Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 The Sox may have won the Central, but they hung on for dear life.Furthermore, I have reason to suspect the Sox will get pounced in the playoffs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcgd Posted September 30, 2005 Author Share Posted September 30, 2005 For reference, see Astros-Cardinals in 2001 NL Central. Cards put up a banner that year claiming "co-champions" but that's not recognized by MLB. No such thing. The Astros won the NLC in '01 because the Cards won the wild card. It shorts a team, yes, but they don't want a one-game playoff to determine the division title when the pitching rotation could get screwed up and cost them a WS title. (although the home-field advantage could cost them, too...) If you look at the standings on MLB.com, there is no determination of who was the Central Division Champs. It just shows both teams tied for first, IE Co-Champions.They were just talking about this during the game two nights ago. They said that they were called Co-Champions. that's what I'm going by. You might have a better memory than me, and maybe I'm wrong, I've been wrong before. but if the roles were reversed, I wouldn't fault the astros from claiming to be Co-Champions either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewharrington Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 I think Co-Champions is a good way to go if both teams are playoff-bound. If the Indians and Sox end up tied, I wouldn't want a one game playoff to determine the culminating fate of the previous 162 games. Let the head-to-head decide who gets home field advantage, though, because that runs the course of the year. Now if they ended up tied, and the loser wouldn't make the playoffs, like if the Yankees and Red Sox both had more wins, I don't know that I'd want the past head-to-head record to determine my team's playoff fate, especially if we were playing very well now, but not so much at the beginning of the season, much like the Indians. I don't know if there is a choice in this situation. I still don't have a website, but I have a dribbble now! http://dribbble.com/andyharry [The postings on this site are my own and do not necessarily represent the position, strategy or opinions of adidas and/or its brands.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JQK Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 Here is how it was explained to me... from MLB.comChicago's victory reduced its magic number to one, clinching a tie for the AL Central title. But even if the Indians were to sweep the three-game set at Jacobs Field this weekend, thus clinching a playoff berth, the White Sox (96-63) would win the tiebreaker for the AL Central crown with an 11-8 edge in head-to-head play. The reason the White Sox and Indians wouldn't play a one-game playoff is because, with the Red Sox and Yankees playing each other this weekend, one team would be guaranteed to finish out of the playoffs if the Indians swept the White Sox. And in instances in which teams are guaranteed to make the playoffs, MLB does not use a one-game playoff, instead relying on head-to-head matchups to break the tie. Stay Tuned Sports Podcast Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bernd Posted September 30, 2005 Share Posted September 30, 2005 ^ Considering that home field advantage in the first round is nonexistent in the MLB playoffs, this is a pretty wise policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LMU Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 Here be the final 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclopsis Joe Posted October 3, 2005 Share Posted October 3, 2005 I'd celebrate the fact that I had to sneak in the playoffs on a technicality, too. I don't speak for democrats, democrats don't speak for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.