Cubs are now 15-6. Times since 1890 they've had as good a start:

1975: 15-6
1969: 15-6
1932: 15-6
1907: 17-4
1906: 15-6
1899: 15-6

And, if you go back, they also have 1888, 1886, 1885, 1883, 1880, 1879, and 1876. In 1880, they started out 35-3.

Yeah but who would ever go back to the 1800s to look up a stat?

Dammit, Doc, you beat me to it. I was doing the same research last night.

Though to expound--the 1969 team was the last to start 16-6. The 1932 team was the last to start 17-6. And the 1907 bunch was the last to start 18-6 or better (20-4; they had 26 wins before they lost their 7th game).

So if the Cubs win the next 3, they'll have actually done something they'd done less recently than winning a world series.

In 1880, they started out 35-3.

Ha! The '84 Tigers and their little 35-5 start can suck it.

Ha! The '84 Tigers and their little 35-5 start can suck it

Is that the 1984 Tigers or the 1884 Tigers?

Len Kasper claimed on the broadcast last night that the Cubs are the only active franchise to never have an overall losing record. This may be common knowledge but I don't recall hearing it.

Great just as I start feeling good someone mentions 1969.

The Giants have the most wins in baseball history? Color me surprised.

Great just as I start feeling good someone mentions 1969.

To complete the thought, here are the final W/L records of those teams:

1975: 75-87. The 15-6 start was followed by a 14-24 stretch, bringing the team under .500 on June 14th. They last saw the .500 mark on June 26th.
1969: 92-70. Everyone knows that story.
1932: 90-64. Pennant winner, swept by the Yankees in the WS. Charlie Grimm's first stint as manager began.
1907: 107-45. World Series Champs over the Tigers and Ty Cobb, who was held to a .200 BA.
1906: 116-36. Pennant winner, losing to the White Sox in the WS.
1899: 75-73, 8th place in the 12-team NL.

In conclusion, I feel pretty confident about the 2008 team winning somewhere between 75 and 116 games.

Anyway, should the Cubs lose tonight, their 15-7 record would be an exact match to the start made by the 1908 team, which will probably get a mention.

The Giants have the most wins in baseball history? Color me surprised.

Those John MacGraw teams won a shitton of games, they didn't suck with Ott, not to mention they didn't suck in the 50's and 60's, and they played ok baseball with Bonds.

Big deal, my Phillies got their 10,000 win last year.

Oh wait, that was 10,000 what?

Len Kasper claimed on the broadcast last night that the Cubs are the only active franchise to never have an overall losing record. This may be common knowledge but I don't recall hearing it.

Huh? Oh, I get it - at no point in franchise history has their W/L mark been under .500. Sounds right. They were beasts through 1891, and never that bad until after WWII.

Ha! The '84 Tigers and their little 35-5 start can suck it

Is that the 1984 Tigers or the 1884 Tigers?

Not that anyone cares, but the 1884 Detroit Wolverines started out 1-16.

The Giants have the most wins in baseball history? Color me surprised.

It has to be an NL team, because they've all been around so much longer than the AL. The Giants were a very good team in the 1880s, a good team in the 1890s, and then came John McGraw. In 30 seasons, they won 10 pennants, and had 11 second-place finishes. Under his successor, Bill Terry, they won 3 more pennants. 1940-41 was their first back-to-back losing seasons since 1901-2.

They cooled off under Ott, but weren't terrible. Then they revived and remained a generally good team until the mid 1970s. 1974-7 is the only time since 1900 they had four consecutive losing seasons; though they're going to tie that mark this year.

A complete list of Giant times the Giants have had the worst record in the NL:

1902
1915
1943
1946
1984

1902 & 1984 are the only times they've had the worst record in MLB.

Not that anyone cares, but the 1884 Detroit Wolverines started out 1-16.

Heh. The symmetry between that and the 1984 Tigers' start's kind of funny.

This always makes me very sad:

Chicago Cubs (1903 - 2008) - 2 World Championships, 10 Pennants, and 15 Playoff Appearances
Philadelphia Phillies (1890 - 1942,1945 - 2008) - 1 World Championship, 5 Pennants, and 10 Playoff Appearances

I was checking B-Ref to see if the Phillies franchise (dating to the Quakers) ever had a winning record, but after playing 108 games under .500 the first two seasons(!), they played pretty good baseball from 1885 to 1901.

The Cubs are very good; they're arguably the best team in the NL right now. Depth in the rotation, depth in the bullpen, excellent lineup--and once they get Soriano back, they'll really be a monster of a team.

What's with all the "dreck" comments? There's some sort of inside joke going on that I'm missing.

Levski, your attempts to jinx us fall on deaf ears. :-)

In all seriousness--I don't know that the Cubs're better than Arizona, if the DBacks keep scoring runs like this.

Actually, I'm kind of dreading Soriano's return, if for no other reason than that the team's played really well with others in the leadoff spot. It'll be good to get his power back, of course, but I'm hoping Lou comes up with some other way to use him.

What's with all the "dreck" comments? There's some sort of inside joke going on that I'm missing.

Take a peek at the game chats from the two Cub/Met games. Dial's of the opinion that the Cub offense consists of "dreck," other than Ramirez and Lee.

The Male Prostitute's christened the Cubs "Team Dreck," which I rather like.

I'm kind of dreading Soriano's return as well, especially considering how much he's sucked so far.

I'm hoping Lou can coordinate Soriano's return to just about the time Mr. Applegate comes to get Reed Johnson.

Reed Johnson has been playing out of his mind lately. I have no idea what to think about that.

In all seriousness--I don't know that the Cubs're better than Arizona, if the DBacks keep scoring runs like this.

The Dbacks won't keep scoring runs like this, unfortunately...

The Dbacks won't keep scoring runs like this, unfortunately...

'course, neither will the Cubs . . .

I've fiddled around with some season projections based on some equations Rany Jazayerli cooked up & dished out on pages 302-10 of "It Ain't Over 'til It's Over." They gauge how a team should do based on it's early start.

With a 15-6 record, a team should be expected to go .576 - that's good for a 93-69 record. Interestingly, the previous Cubs teams (since 1890 anyway) that started out exactly 15-6 ended up 448-330 for a winning percentage of .576. Score one for Rany, there.

However, Rany also notes previous seasons winning percentage mean more than 2-3 weeks worth of games, and should be factored in and weighted based on how many games have been played so far this year. You look at the previous three seasons. With 21 games played, the current season only accounts for 1/4th of the projection. Based on that, the Cubs should go .516, for a 84-78 record.

However, Rany also notes previous seasons winning percentage mean more than 2-3 weeks worth of games, and should be factored in and weighted based on how many games have been played so far this year. You look at the previous three seasons. With 21 games played, the current season only accounts for 1/4th of the projection. Based on that, the Cubs should go .516, for a 84-78 record.

This projection model seems a little silly in the case of this year's Cubs, given that the entire lineup other than Lee** and Ramirez, the entire rotation other than Zambrano, and the entire bench is different from what they used just 2 years ago. (And why 3 seasons, rather than 2, or 5, or 6?)

For the Cubs to go 84-78, they'll have to play under .500 the rest of the way. Given the talent on hand and the level of competition in the division, I just don't see that happening.

**Lee shouldn't really be counted as part of the '06 lineup, since he missed most of the season.

One other random point - the Cubs are currently 9 games over .500, something they never did last year. They maxed out at 57-49, 8 games over.

They maxed out at 57-49, 8 games over.

And at 85-77, of course.

That's an interesting fact.

Another interesting fact, which a friend of mine emailed to me: Both the 9,000th and 10,000th Cub wins were by the score of 7-6, in Colorado.

The Cubs used a guy named Mike Walker in relief in their 9,000th win (5/23/95). I don't even remember him.

I've said it before, but I love this team. They're just a lot more fun to watch, they're a smart team, and they're tearing the cover off the ball now.

Last night was one of those games that seemed like they should lose, for a bunch of different reasons (shoddy bullpen work, multiple blown leads, ridiculous overmanaging). But they still won. It's really, really hard not to get overoptimistic. But this is just a fun team and are pretty damn good. I'm trying to just enjoy it.

I'm with you, Moses. Too early to tell whether this is best Cubs team of recent years -- as of now I think the 2004 team had better talent overall (certainly had better starting pitching) -- but the past two weeks have been more fun than any regular-season stretch I can remember since at least June 1998. They won't keep it up, of course -- this isn't a 1000-run offense -- and I'm still worried about the rotation, but there's been precious little to complain about thus far.

Its been fun, actually enjoying baseball vs. the "I could really use a ####### cigarette" baseball I'm used to.

You don't remember Mike Walker?

He wasn't used all that much, he had a huge ass. IIRC pretty much a ROOGY.

One other random point - the Cubs are currently 9 games over .500, something they never did last year. They maxed out at 57-49, 8 games over.

10 games over before the nightmare in Miami.

I don't remember Mike Walker either. I was only 11 at the time, but still I spent most of my summer poring over the stats boxes. That was a fun run at the end of that year, where we kept winning to keep a sliver of hope for the wild card alive that last week.