PDA

View Full Version : What is it about the Cubs at Wrigley Field after the 7th inning stretch?


Viva Medias B's
06-24-2008, 10:20 PM
It seems like at least half the time the Cubs are down at Wrigley Field when the 7th inning stretch occurs, with that mockery of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" being performed, it sparks a Cubs rally? It has happened several times this season already. It happened to us Friday, and it partially happened tonight as the Cubs turned a 7-1 Oriole lead into a 7-4 Oriole lead.

pierzynski07
06-24-2008, 10:28 PM
Currently they're a good "come from behind" team, especially at home. That's all it is.

Or the bullpens of everyone else are awful.

Frontman
06-24-2008, 10:43 PM
That, or Bud Selig has started pulling a Vince McMahon.......:rolleyes:

Kogs35
06-24-2008, 10:57 PM
That, or Bud Selig has started pulling a Vince McMahon.......:rolleyes:

what having a falling set come down? they already have that at wrigely

Viva Medias B's
06-24-2008, 11:02 PM
what having a falling set come down? they already have that at wrigely

Well, they have had falling concrete.

kittle42
06-24-2008, 11:06 PM
Don't look now...

TheOldRoman
06-24-2008, 11:11 PM
Move it along. Nothing to see here.

oeo
06-24-2008, 11:12 PM
Go Cubs Go!

soxwon
06-24-2008, 11:15 PM
Didnt happen today, they did come back but lose 7-5
Had bags loaded 0 outs and couldnt score.
How can Baltimore beat em and we couldnt?

Woofer
06-24-2008, 11:21 PM
The have definitely had some sort of luck in the bottom of the seventh all year. Somewhere somebody could find the stats on this. I watched the bottom of the 9th tonight, and was great not hearing the Go Cubs Go song at the end of the game.

oeo
06-24-2008, 11:26 PM
Didnt happen today, they did come back but lose 7-5
Had bags loaded 0 outs and couldnt score.
How can Baltimore beat em and we couldnt?

Good or bad, the Cubs always play us well.

Still three more games to go.

DumpJerry
06-24-2008, 11:41 PM
Didnt happen today, they did come back but lose 7-5
Had bags loaded 0 outs and couldnt score.
How can Baltimore beat em and we couldnt?
We wore 'em out.

thomas35forever
06-25-2008, 12:19 AM
Bye-bye to 45-cent beer at Harry Carey's.
http://crawlyscubs.mlblogs.com/L_flag.gif

twentywontowin
06-25-2008, 02:10 AM
Have Bernie Mac sing the 7th Inning Stretch. It worked last time.

RadioheadRocks
06-25-2008, 03:32 AM
http://picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/1-14-05/disappointing-thread.jpg

Railsplitter
06-25-2008, 08:16 AM
I have memories (admittedly hazy) of the Sox having a "Magic Eighth" back in 1972.

russ99
06-25-2008, 09:20 AM
Bye-bye to 45-cent beer at Harry Carey's.
http://crawlyscubs.mlblogs.com/L_flag.gif

Oh wait, I forgot. Weren't the Cubs "never going to lose another home game" ?? :tongue:

Frontman
06-25-2008, 09:46 AM
Oh wait, I forgot. Weren't the Cubs "never going to lose another home game" ?? :tongue:

I do have to say I took some small bit of pleasure out of the silence as Baltimore walked off the field last night. A bit of humble pie for both players and the fanbase isn't a bad thing; as I cannot abide the "Dem Sox fans were so arrogant after 2005; like da Sox are special or somethin!" insults we took on Saturday/Sunday.

Cubs fans, your team CAN and WILL lose home games. Hopefully, you can come to realize that nothing is a sure-fire "punch dere ticket to October" and that will still a half a season to play; nothing is written in stone that the Cubs will make it to the Series.

infohawk
06-25-2008, 09:54 AM
I was telling a friend the other day that I'm surprised that nobody's floated any (false) theories that the Cubs are stealing signs at home. I obviously don't believe in sign stealing rumors, but when a baseball team appears almost unbeatable at home, someone often at least raises a conspiracy theory. That said, the Cubs aren't the only team doing well at home. The Sox do pretty well if I recall.

It's Time
06-25-2008, 10:07 AM
I was telling a friend the other day that I'm surprised that nobody's floated any (false) theories that the Cubs are stealing signs at home. I obviously don't believe in sign stealing rumors, but when a baseball team appears almost unbeatable at home, someone often at least raises a conspiracy theory. That said, the Cubs aren't the only team doing well at home. The Sox do pretty well if I recall.

I think JB98 made a very good point to me the other day when he said that the Cubs can also first to third you to death. They have an almost perfect balance of speed and power. They are on pace to hit about 200 HR, yet score often by stealing bases and taking the extra base.

The finally have a team that has near perfect balance, which is stunning considering the ineptidue of putting together teams like this in the past.

aryzner
06-25-2008, 11:01 AM
They're just a good team, that's all there is to it. Their fans get so loud that I think it gets into the other team's heads. My girlfriend is a Cub fan so I was watching the game with her last night and I thought that the O's were about to choke away that game with how loud the crowd was and with how suddenly they couldn't pitch anymore. At the Sox games I've been to this year, we've been nowhere near as loud. I really wonder what would happen if we were. Would we create a sudden burst of offense out of our Sox? Would we get into the other team's heads and cause them to implode?

All that being said, I have to admit that the silence of that place last night was funny to see. They showed one guy with his arms over his head who looked like his world was just torn apart. I guess people were just shocked that the home winning streak was over. [soccer reference coming] I'm sure that Chelsea FC fans will be just as shocked when their home undefeated streak comes to an end. (They haven't lost at home in 82 games)

SOXPHILE
06-25-2008, 11:21 AM
I've been thinking the same thing, for the last couple of years and even more so this year. When they're trailing in the 7th, the Cubs will score in the bottom half. It seems it's happened every time this year. THE CUBS WILL SCORE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE 7TH. Every single damn time they're trailing. The leadoff hitter always seems to either get a 1st pitch hit, or a 4 pitch walk. Then, the 39K idiots get up out of their seats and start whoooooing and clapping, and the CUBS SCORE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE 7TH INNING. :angry:

It was good to see the crowd all deflated and stunned at the end. But don't worry, the idiocy will begin anew this evening.

aryzner
06-25-2008, 11:24 AM
I've been thinking the same thing, for the last couple of years and even more so this year. When they're trailing in the 7th, the Cubs will score in the bottom half. It seems it's happened every time this year. THE CUBS WILL SCORE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE 7TH. Every single damn time they're trailing. The leadoff hitter always seems to either get a 1st pitch hit, or a 4 pitch walk. Then, the 39K idiots get up out of their seats and start whoooooing and clapping, and the CUBS SCORE IN THE BOTTOM OF THE 7TH INNING. :angry:

It was good to see the crowd all deflated and stunned at the end. But don't worry, the idiocy will begin anew this evening.
Why do you call it idiocy? It's a bunch of fans cheering and getting behind their team. I don't see anything wrong with it, personally.

SOXPHILE
06-25-2008, 11:27 AM
Ummm..because they're Cub fans ? And most of those in attendance don't know a whole hell of alot about baseball, and are backwards hat wearing Lincoln Park/Lakeview fratboy assclowns, Lincoln Park Trixies, and Izod shirt wearing tourists who get up and cheer because they see everyone else do the same thing ?

spawn
06-25-2008, 11:29 AM
It seems like at least half the time the Cubs are down at Wrigley Field when the 7th inning stretch occurs, with that mockery of "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" being performed, it sparks a Cubs rally? It has happened several times this season already. It happened to us Friday, and it partially happened tonight as the Cubs turned a 7-1 Oriole lead into a 7-4 Oriole lead.
Maybe harry made a deal with the devil for the '08 season? :shrug:

aryzner
06-25-2008, 11:44 AM
Ummm..because they're Cub fans ? And most of those in attendance don't know a whole hell of alot about baseball, and are backwards hat wearing Lincoln Park/Lakeview fratboy assclowns, Lincoln Park Trixies, and Izod shirt wearing tourists who get up and cheer because they see everyone else do the same thing ?
I think that if I was at a Sox game, and the 7th inning stretch just happened, our leadoff guy gets on base, and then the crowd got really into it and cheered as loud as they do at Wrigley, I would be happy about that and think, "This is pretty awesome, let's get behind our Sox." I strongly doubt I'd care if it was just tourists cheering or whomever. I'd just be happy that the place was getting loud to cheer for them.

Would you say you would hate it if the situation were the same at the Cell? I'm just asking here. It seems like there's a lot of hate around this place nowadays and this extreme hatred and (from some folks) the denial that the Cubs are a good team this year only fuels the stereotypes like "Sox fans only care about if the Cubs lose" as well as others.

SaltyPretzel
06-25-2008, 11:45 AM
Maybe harry made a deal with the devil for the '08 season? :shrug:

..or the Keeper of Lost Souls Harry: http://www.joesportsfan.com/jsfpics/columns3/harrycaray2_400.jpg

Frontman
06-25-2008, 11:50 AM
They're just a good team, that's all there is to it. Their fans get so loud that I think it gets into the other team's heads. My girlfriend is a Cub fan so I was watching the game with her last night and I thought that the O's were about to choke away that game with how loud the crowd was and with how suddenly they couldn't pitch anymore. At the Sox games I've been to this year, we've been nowhere near as loud. I really wonder what would happen if we were. Would we create a sudden burst of offense out of our Sox? Would we get into the other team's heads and cause them to implode?

All that being said, I have to admit that the silence of that place last night was funny to see. They showed one guy with his arms over his head who looked like his world was just torn apart. I guess people were just shocked that the home winning streak was over. [soccer reference coming] I'm sure that Chelsea FC fans will be just as shocked when their home undefeated streak comes to an end. (They haven't lost at home in 82 games)

Ties should break a streak. That's all I'm saying. :wink:

As far as the Cubs are concerned, yes they are not only a good team, but a very good team. That being said, they are NOT invincible, contrary to a number of their fanbase would like to believe. I hope that the fans and the player keep that in mind, the next time a reporter asks Lou/'The Ram'/'The Riot'/'The Edmonds' about home field advantage over other teams. It would be refreshing for once to hear a coach/player say,

"Yeah, we're a very good team at home; but we have to play to that level to remain that good at home. We can't assume just because our fans are behind us that we will automatically win."

It's Time
06-25-2008, 11:56 AM
Yesterday had to be because of Julianna Hough singing the stretch. :tongue:

http://tv.popcrunch.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/julianne_hough.jpg

PatK
06-25-2008, 12:51 PM
The last few years, they've had teams that couldn't win at home but were decent on the road. This year, they've assembled a team that is good at home.

Contrary to belief, the wind blows in more than it blows out at Wrigley. The keys to having a winning team there is on base percentage, speed, and decent pitching.

They've got a good team, but right now they have a couple guys playing way over their heads that are going to slow down or go back towards their career norms.

The disparity between their road stats and home is too glaring.

But right now, they've got the best record, so good for them. But the best record in June doesn't mean you're going to the World Series.

Tekijawa
06-25-2008, 01:17 PM
I think it's because the Beer Vendor that Manages the team finally has time to get word to Sweet Lou some baseball Strategy that actually works outside of the 1970's.

TDog
06-25-2008, 02:01 PM
Didnt happen today, they did come back but lose 7-5
Had bags loaded 0 outs and couldnt score.
How can Baltimore beat em and we couldnt?

Do you think Yankees fans are whining that the White Sox swept the Pirates last week but their boys lost 12-5?

To read this board, I thought only the White Sox couldn't score with the bases loaded and none out with the game on the line. I looked at the play-by-play and saw that no one even hit into a doubleplay, which is usually the killer in those situations. With one out, when a single would have tied the game and could have put the winning run on third, Fukudome struck out. Opening day heroics and subsequent heroics notwithstanding, he didn't come through with a game-winning extra-base hit, a game-tying single or even a walk to put the winning run in scoring position. Coming through yesterday doesn't mean you'll come through today.

At the end of July in 1991, the White Sox were surging. Robin Ventura hit a two-out three-run homer off Goose Gossage to end the 10-8 game, one of the most dramatic games in team history. It was something like the 25th time the Sox had won in their last at bat. It was a heck of a game. The Rangers broke a 5-5 tie in the eighth with three runs, and Frank Thomas hit a solo home run off Kenny Rogers to get one back going into the ninth. People were talking about the White Sox being a great clutch team to be reckoned with, and they were just three games behind the first-place Twins. But there were only a couple of last at-bat wins in the last two months of the season.

Eleven games on he South Side of Chicago have ended with Joe Crede RBIs, but it is probably easier for some of us to remember the games that could have ended with Joe Crede RBIs, or at least could have been extended into extra innings, but instead resulted in White Sox losses.

In baseball, in Chicago in particular, there are rare magic seasons, i.e. the 2005 White Sox. There are magical regular seasons, i.e. the 1983 White Sox and 1984 Cubs. There are magical first halves of seasons, i.e. the 1969 Cubs. There are even magical fortnights, i.e. a 10-game stretch for the White Sox in May 1976. There are many games to be played before a magic label can be slapped on 2008 Chicago baseball.

kittle42
06-25-2008, 02:24 PM
In baseball, in Chicago in particular, there are rare magic seasons, i.e. the 2005 White Sox. There are magical regular seasons, i.e. the 1983 White Sox and 1984 Cubs. There are magical first halves of seasons, i.e. the 1969 Cubs. There are even magical fortnights, i.e. a 10-game stretch for the White Sox in May 1976. There are many games to be played before a magic label can be slapped on 2008 Chicago baseball.

Chicago tends to slap the label "magical" on any season where a team makes (or, even, almost makes) the playoffs. Kinda sucks.

bridgeportcopper
06-25-2008, 03:02 PM
I don't know about magic - but they should really put an end to that guest singer thing. Originally, it was supposed to be singers with ties to the Cubs or Chicago in general. You would think for Cubs-Sox weekend, they would get famous Chicagoans (Jordan, Ditka, Daley) seeing as a considerable amount of Sox fans come over for those games and it is somewhat of a civic event, or even Cubs legends if they don't care about the Sox fans. But, what were we "treated" to this weekend? Kenny Chesney, sure, he might be a good singer (I don't know, not a country fan), but hardly a link to Chicago. Pete Wentz from flavor of the month band Fall Out Boy (maybe the Cubs hoped they'd get some star power from Ashley Simpson, but she apparently wanted no part of the ordeal), and on sunday, the game I attended we get Meathead from the Archie Bunker Show???? Granted he is a talented director and a Chicagoan, but come on???? Not a very devout Cubs fan from anything I've seen, and I don't ever hear about him being here often or living here. Might be time to gas this "tradition" which has "jumped the shark".

TommyJohn
06-25-2008, 03:54 PM
Chicago tends to slap the label "magical" on any season where a team makes (or, even, almost makes) the playoffs. Kinda sucks.

But the 1983 and 2000 seasons were magical! The White Sox got to the
playoffs and POOF, the offense disappeared.

jdm2662
06-25-2008, 04:06 PM
But the 1983 and 2000 seasons were magical! The White Sox got to the
playoffs and POOF, the offense disappeared.

It was strange magic.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Miynjikf3U

TDog
06-25-2008, 04:30 PM
Chicago tends to slap the label "magical" on any season where a team makes (or, even, almost makes) the playoffs. Kinda sucks.

You're right. It really is sad that the 1977 White Sox continue to have a cult following. Not that it wasn't a fun season, but the team did finish 13 games out of first. That might cut it for an expansion team. Come to think of it, the 2000 and 1993 White Sox fell to expansion teams, as did the 2003 and 1984 Cubs. And when the 1969 Cubs collapsed after they seemed invincible with Kenny Holtzman's no-hitter, it was an expansion team that surged past them.

SOXPHILE
06-25-2008, 05:59 PM
I don't know about magic - but they should really put an end to that guest singer thing. Originally, it was supposed to be singers with ties to the Cubs or Chicago in general. You would think for Cubs-Sox weekend, they would get famous Chicagoans (Jordan, Ditka, Daley) seeing as a considerable amount of Sox fans come over for those games and it is somewhat of a civic event, or even Cubs legends if they don't care about the Sox fans. But, what were we "treated" to this weekend? Kenny Chesney, sure, he might be a good singer (I don't know, not a country fan), but hardly a link to Chicago. Pete Wentz from flavor of the month band Fall Out Boy (maybe the Cubs hoped they'd get some star power from Ashley Simpson, but she apparently wanted no part of the ordeal), and on sunday, the game I attended we get Meathead from the Archie Bunker Show???? Granted he is a talented director and a Chicagoan, but come on???? Not a very devout Cubs fan from anything I've seen, and I don't ever hear about him being here often or living here. Might be time to gas this "tradition" which has "jumped the shark".

Yep. I've been saying that for a long time. In 1998, the first year Harry was gone, o.k., it was a nice little tribute. Now, the C, D and E list celebrities they've been dredging up - (a couple of years ago, they actually had the J.J. guy from Good Times "singing", and then screaming out "TWO GRAND SLAMS" in a game the Cubs were losing something like 12-1) -while the frat boys, trixies and tourists in attendance drunkenly slur along with them, is just pathetic. I won't even call it a dog and pony show, as that is an insult to dog and pony shows everywhere.

getonbckthr
06-25-2008, 06:03 PM
The Cubs are a strikeout bullpen. How many pens in the game are good and strikeout hitters on a consistent basis? They strike hitters out where the other pens aren't as good and pitch to contact. Contact on average pitchers run the risk of biting you in the ass.

jdm2662
06-25-2008, 06:38 PM
You're right. It really is sad that the 1977 White Sox continue to have a cult following. Not that it wasn't a fun season, but the team did finish 13 games out of first. That might cut it for an expansion team. Come to think of it, the 2000 and 1993 White Sox fell to expansion teams, as did the 2003 and 1984 Cubs. And when the 1969 Cubs collapsed after they seemed invincible with Kenny Holtzman's no-hitter, it was an expansion team that surged past them.

What I'm amazed is how much love the 69 Cubs get. Hell, Ronnie still talkes about them as being great champions. They were five games in first at the start of the Sept, and lost 13 games in the standings that month alone!! It's mind boggling. Had the 2005 White Sox not hung on and won the division, I'd like to think most people here would be rather pissed off.

PatK
06-25-2008, 06:39 PM
The Harry thing should have ended years ago.

I can't stand if I'm watching a Cubs game and I have to listen to whoever they have singing plugging whatever it is they are plugging and most of the time, knowing nothing about the baseball or the Cubs.

comerica
06-25-2008, 07:11 PM
Didnt happen today, they did come back but lose 7-5
Had bags loaded 0 outs and couldnt score.
How can Baltimore beat em and we couldnt?

They had Sean Gallagher pitching and Sean Gallagher is terrible. Don't worry, there is no way Baltimore is better than the White Sox. You just weren't lucky enough to face their weakest pitcher last weekend.

Johnny Mostil
06-25-2008, 08:48 PM
Chicago tends to slap the label "magical" on any season where a team makes (or, even, almost makes) the playoffs. Kinda sucks.

This, alas, is a result of all too many Chicago baseball teams, um, sucking. I'm sure you recall a poster here bragging about the rather pitiful number of 90-win seasons the Sox have had in recent years compared to the even more pitiful number the Cubs have had. Do fans in other places but Chicago count such things?

As for September 1969, as raised by others, teams tend to lose an inordinate amount of games in the standings when their chief rivals go 23-7. Now that was magical . . .

ohthosechisox
06-25-2008, 08:51 PM
They had Sean Gallagher pitching and Sean Gallagher is terrible. Don't worry, there is no way Baltimore is better than the White Sox. You just weren't lucky enough to face their weakest pitcher last weekend.

No, it was actually Sean Marshall pitching yesterday. The Sox get to face him on Sunday, but we dont get to face Gallagher at all.

TDog
06-25-2008, 09:19 PM
... As for September 1969, as raised by others, teams tend to lose an inordinate amount of games in the standings when their chief rivals go 23-7. ...

Esppecially teams that go 9-18 in September.

Johnny Mostil
06-25-2008, 09:32 PM
Esppecially teams that go 9-18 in September.

I suppose, although (and I know I'm in the minority on this, not to mention far off-topic) I still think the Mets won it that year (rather than the Cubs losing it) . . .

TDog
06-26-2008, 02:34 AM
I suppose, although (and I know I'm in the minority on this, not to mention far off-topic) I still think the Mets won it that year (rather than the Cubs losing it) . . .

Sure the Mets won it. But they wouldn't have won it if the Cubs hadn't lost it. Kenny Holtzman pitched his no-hitter on August 19. Ron Santo hit a three-run homer in the first, for the only scoring, and he clicked his heels in his ritual home-win run to the dugout at game's end. The Mets won 1-0 in extra innings that night to remain eight games back. The Mets were 10 back in the lost column, as were the two-time defending National League champion Cardinals.

The Mets went 33-11 the rest of the way. The Cubs went 15-25. Had the Cubs played .500, they would have finished three games behind the Mets.

No one expected the Cubs to play .500 in their last 40 games. Up to that point, they had a .631 winning percentage. The Mets finished the season with a .617 winning percentage, which the Cubs could have accomplished by going 23-17 -- a .575 clip for a team playing .631.

I wasn't a Cubs fan, but I saw the suffering when the Pirates came to town for a sweep before the Cubs left town for a 2-7 road trip.

Ron Santo likes to say that the Cubs didn't lose, that the Mets won. But if the Cubs had played just a few games above .500 from late August, the Cubs and Mets would have been within a game or two with the teams squaring off for two games at Wrigley Field to decide who would face the Braves in the first National League Championship Series. Instead, the Cubs beat the Mets (without the postgame heel clicking) on the last day of the season to finish eight games behind instead of 10.

It wasn't just the Cubs lead, which was as high as 8.5 games in August 1969. It was the fact that they looked so good in building that lead. They seemed to have awesome hitting. They seemed to have awesome pitching.

And suddenly there was nothing but bleeding that never stopped.

TommyJohn
06-26-2008, 09:47 AM
Sure the Mets won it. But they wouldn't have won it if the Cubs hadn't lost it. Kenny Holtzman pitched his no-hitter on August 19. Ron Santo hit a three-run homer in the first, for the only scoring, and he clicked his heels in his ritual home-win run to the dugout at game's end. The Mets won 1-0 in extra innings that night to remain eight games back. The Mets were 10 back in the lost column, as were the two-time defending National League champion Cardinals.

The Mets went 33-11 the rest of the way. The Cubs went 15-25. Had the Cubs played .500, they would have finished three games behind the Mets.

No one expected the Cubs to play .500 in their last 40 games. Up to that point, they had a .631 winning percentage. The Mets finished the season with a .617 winning percentage, which the Cubs could have accomplished by going 23-17 -- a .575 clip for a team playing .631.

I wasn't a Cubs fan, but I saw the suffering when the Pirates came to town for a sweep before the Cubs left town for a 2-7 road trip.

Ron Santo likes to say that the Cubs didn't lose, that the Mets won. But if the Cubs had played just a few games above .500 from late August, the Cubs and Mets would have been within a game or two with the teams squaring off for two games at Wrigley Field to decide who would face the Braves in the first National League Championship Series. Instead, the Cubs beat the Mets (without the postgame heel clicking) on the last day of the season to finish eight games behind instead of 10.

It wasn't just the Cubs lead, which was as high as 8.5 games in August 1969. It was the fact that they looked so good in building that lead. They seemed to have awesome hitting. They seemed to have awesome pitching.

And suddenly there was nothing but bleeding that never stopped.

I just looked on retrosheet, and on 9/1/69, they were 83-52, meaning
they only had to go 17-10 to at least have tied the Mets, who were
5 games back at 76-55. With the way they were playing, they were
capable of doing that. The media is right, this was one of the most
stunning, epic collapses in baseball history. After the 2005 White Sox,
that is.

And I disagree with the assessment that the Cubs lost it more than the
Mets won it. The Cubs had flaws that just caught up with them at the
absolute wrong time, but they still could have won the division with the
92-70 record had the Mets not played as well as they did.

Johnnydogs
06-26-2008, 11:25 AM
No, it was actually Sean Marshall pitching yesterday. The Sox get to face him on Sunday, but we dont get to face Gallagher at all.

I think they are throwing Dempster, Sean Gallagher, and Sean Marshall on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday respectively. Gallagher is a rookie and has better stuff than Marshall but I also remember he beat us at the Cell last year giving up 1 or 2 runs. Hopefully, we have some better scouting reports on these guys because I'm tired of losing to pitchers we haven't seen before.

ohthosechisox
06-26-2008, 01:26 PM
I think they are throwing Dempster, Sean Gallagher, and Sean Marshall on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday respectively. Gallagher is a rookie and has better stuff than Marshall but I also remember he beat us at the Cell last year giving up 1 or 2 runs. Hopefully, we have some better scouting reports on these guys because I'm tired of losing to pitchers we haven't seen before.

Yeah I just noticed the change. I thought that we were going to see Marquis, Dempster, and Marshall, but it looks like the Cubs changed up their rotation again with the off day on Monday. Thanks for the correction.

Johnny Mostil
06-26-2008, 01:39 PM
I just looked on retrosheet, and on 9/1/69, they were 83-52, meaning
they only had to go 17-10 to at least have tied the Mets.

That means on 9/1/69 the Cubs had a .615 winning percentage. Going 17-10 the rest of the way would have required they played .630 ball--better than they had to that point . . .

Johnny Mostil
06-26-2008, 01:59 PM
Sure the Mets won it. But they wouldn't have won it if the Cubs hadn't lost it. Kenny Holtzman pitched his no-hitter on August 19. Ron Santo hit a three-run homer in the first, for the only scoring, and he clicked his heels in his ritual home-win run to the dugout at game's end. The Mets won 1-0 in extra innings that night to remain eight games back. The Mets were 10 back in the lost column, as were the two-time defending National League champion Cardinals.

The Mets went 33-11 the rest of the way. The Cubs went 15-25. Had the Cubs played .500, they would have finished three games behind the Mets.

No one expected the Cubs to play .500 in their last 40 games. Up to that point, they had a .631 winning percentage. The Mets finished the season with a .617 winning percentage, which the Cubs could have accomplished by going 23-17 -- a .575 clip for a team playing .631.

I wasn't a Cubs fan, but I saw the suffering when the Pirates came to town for a sweep before the Cubs left town for a 2-7 road trip.

Ron Santo likes to say that the Cubs didn't lose, that the Mets won. But if the Cubs had played just a few games above .500 from late August, the Cubs and Mets would have been within a game or two with the teams squaring off for two games at Wrigley Field to decide who would face the Braves in the first National League Championship Series. Instead, the Cubs beat the Mets (without the postgame heel clicking) on the last day of the season to finish eight games behind instead of 10.

It wasn't just the Cubs lead, which was as high as 8.5 games in August 1969. It was the fact that they looked so good in building that lead. They seemed to have awesome hitting. They seemed to have awesome pitching.

And suddenly there was nothing but bleeding that never stopped.

What can I say? That's why they play all 162? That you're a terrible human being for forcing me to agree with Ron Santo?:smile:

I just find it odd that Sox fans, the ones in Chicago I assume (or claim they) are more interested in winning baseball, sometimes seem as likely as Cub fans to focus on the Cubs' "choking" rather than the Mets winning that year with a terrific club that had a helluva stretch run.

I could understand indifference; this happened nearly 40 years ago. But it seems to me to underscore K42's point about how pathetic baseball "highlights" can sometimes seem in Chicago . . .

TommyJohn
06-26-2008, 02:05 PM
That means on 9/1/69 the Cubs had a .615 winning percentage. Going 17-10 the rest of the way would have required they played .630 ball--better than they had to that point . . .

Difficult, but not impossible. The Mets were at .568 on 8/31 and played .800 ball in September.

Johnny Mostil
06-26-2008, 02:17 PM
Difficult, but not impossible. The Mets were at .568 on 8/31 and played .800 ball in September.

Agreed. With the bold text being the point . . .

TommyJohn
06-26-2008, 02:39 PM
Agreed. With the bold text being the point . . .

Oh, I know. I am agreeing that the Mets won it that year. My original point was just how badly the Cubs blew it that year. That takes nothing away from the Mets.

PennStater98r
06-26-2008, 07:00 PM
. . . It seems like there's a lot of hate around this place nowadays and this extreme hatred and (from some folks) the denial that the Cubs are a good team this year only fuels the stereotypes like "Sox fans only care about if the Cubs lose" as well as others.

:whocares

:thankgod

:dumbpeople:

The Cubs suck!