PDA

View Full Version : USA TODAY: 102 Years and counting!


Fenway
08-18-2010, 11:18 AM
USA Today ponders why the Cubs are the Cubs.

Steve Stone offers a staggering stat - in the past 70 years they have won 50 at home THREE times

St Louis had done that five times THIS DECADE

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/cubs/2010-08-17-baseball-chicago-cubs-lou-piniella-wrigley-field-_N.htm

DumpJerry
08-18-2010, 12:00 PM
Wow. Nobody could say anything nice about The Urinal, could they?

DSpivack
08-18-2010, 12:03 PM
USA Today ponders why the Cubs are the Cubs.

Steve Stone offers a staggering stat - in the past 70 years they have won 50 at home THREE times

St Louis had done that five times THIS DECADE

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/cubs/2010-08-17-baseball-chicago-cubs-lou-piniella-wrigley-field-_N.htm

Considering this is the first year in the decade, I doubt it. :tongue:

Zakath
08-18-2010, 12:40 PM
Considering this is the first year in the decade, I doubt it. :tongue:

Technically, it's not, as there was no year 0, so the 21st century didn't begin until 1/1/2001.

DSpivack
08-18-2010, 12:47 PM
Technically, it's not, as there was no year 0, so the 21st century didn't begin until 1/1/2001.

True, but to me, decades are the years associated with the numbers. It's too confusing otherwise and makes no sense.

Hitmen77
08-18-2010, 12:51 PM
Technically, it's not, as there was no year 0, so the 21st century didn't begin until 1/1/2001.

Yes, but why does that mean that our current decades have to start with a year ending in 1? :dunno: A decade just any 10 year period. The "1990s decade" is simply a 10 year period from 1990 to 1999. It's not dependent on whether there was a year 0. If the "90s" ended in 1999, then it's only logical that the next decade that we mark in our culture was 2000-2009.

It's a little different with centuries since people officially title it "the 21st century" because there you are actually going back and assigning 100 year periods all the way to year 1. I guess the same would apply if you called 2000-2009 the "201st Decade" (if I'm even counting them right:scratch:)

/thread hijack

DSpivack
08-18-2010, 01:02 PM
Yes, but why does that mean that our current decades have to start with a year ending in 1? :dunno: A decade just any 10 year period. The "1990s decade" is simply a 10 year period from 1990 to 1999. It's not dependent on whether there was a year 0. If the "90s" ended in 1999, then it's only logical that the next decade that we mark in our culture was 2000-2009.

It's a little different with centuries since people officially title it "the 21st century" because there you are actually going back and assigning 100 year periods all the way to year 1. I guess the same would apply if you called 2000-2009 the "201st Decade" (if I'm even counting them right:scratch:)

/thread hijack

I know century means 100 years, but why can't the first century just have had 99 years?

voodoochile
08-18-2010, 01:08 PM
Technically, it's not, as there was no year 0, so the 21st century didn't begin until 1/1/2001.

Yes, but the decade "the teens" starts with 10 unless you count 20 as a teen number. Most people don't...

Hitmen77
08-18-2010, 01:12 PM
USA Today ponders why the Cubs are the Cubs.

Steve Stone offers a staggering stat - in the past 70 years they have won 50 at home THREE times

St Louis had done that five times THIS DECADE

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/nl/cubs/2010-08-17-baseball-chicago-cubs-lou-piniella-wrigley-field-_N.htm

You mean the Cubs had the highest payroll in the NL and they might lose 95 games and are saddled with a bunch of bad contracts? Hendry is a genius!!!!

I guess the Cubs can't have their cake and eat it too. What do they want? A constant supply of large crowds because people like Wrigley as a tourist spot, "shrine", and a bar-hopping mecca? Or do they want a modern facility with enough amenities to compete in the 21st century.

What? They can't have both? Well boo-****ing-hoo for the Cubs and their "Wrigley Field fans". :whiner::whiner::whiner: :violin: Tons of their fans are endlessly wrapping themselves in all good things about the "Shire Called Wrigley" and turning their noses up at the Sox and their stupid modern ballpark with modern amenities. They're happy to flaunt how wonderful their park is, so shut up and deal with the pitfalls of that dump and watch your team lose.

Don'tchya know? Baseball is meant to be played in the sunshine in an old, outmoded ballpark with obstructed views and urinal troughs! Only a heretic would like an abomination like Comiskular Ballmall with its wall to wall advertising. Sox fans can keep their travesty of a park, thank you very much. We'll take going to the Bud Light Bleachers and watching our lovable losers take the field from the Walter E. Smith dugout any day!

Now our poor old Cubbies are stinky again. Let's write more articles about why that might be!

/rant

Hitmen77
08-18-2010, 01:14 PM
I know century means 100 years, but why can't the first century just have had 99 years?

I think that's why most people are good enough with thinking of the "20th Century" as 1900-1999. Yeah, technically that's wrong. But it's a real nit-picky thing to worry about.

Fenway
08-18-2010, 01:14 PM
Getting back to the Flubs - that stat shows how unfriendly Wrigley is to the team.

The mistake was made when Harry Caray's blew up the Bartman ball....they should have blown up 1060 W Addison.

Hitmen77
08-18-2010, 01:16 PM
....oh, and one thing in that article that really hits home for the Sox too is them pointing out that one of the Cubs' problems in recent years has been their failure to produce much of anything from their farm system.

Sadly for us, the Sox system is just as bad if not worse. What applies to the Cubs applies to the Sox even more so - until we start developing our own talent, we're going to have trouble competing.

Hitmen77
08-18-2010, 01:18 PM
Getting back to the Flubs - that stat shows how unfriendly Wrigley is to the team.

The mistake was made when Harry Caray's blew up the Bartman ball....they should have blown up 1060 W Addison.

How are things in comparison for the Red Sox? I know they've done a bunch of renovations lately...and of course they don't have the whole "day games" thing to deal with. But is there a feeling there that the practice/training facilities for the BoSox are outdated with no room to upgrade?

C-Dawg
08-18-2010, 02:40 PM
Technically, it's not, as there was no year 0, so the 21st century didn't begin until 1/1/2001.

I think everyone who quibbles over the lack of a Year 0 should get a room with Rush Limbaugh where they'll all stress over how the new century started in 2001 and not 2000 like the rest of us believe.

DSpivack
08-18-2010, 02:53 PM
I think everyone who quibbles over the lack of a Year 0 should get a room with Rush Limbaugh where they'll all stress over how the new century started in 2001 and not 2000 like the rest of us believe.

Whenever I see Year O I think of the Trent Reznor album.

g0g0
08-18-2010, 03:01 PM
I liked the article. Many of those reasons seem plausible. Wrigley isn't going anywhere though. I think it'll have to actually fall (completely, not just parts o the upper deck) to the ground before they move to a new stadium. I could be wrong. It would nice to designate it a museum or use it for some other such nonsense and then build an ultra-modern ballpark. I for one wouldn't mind having a better Cell. :D:

pythons007
08-18-2010, 03:20 PM
....oh, and one thing in that article that really hits home for the Sox too is them pointing out that one of the Cubs' problems in recent years has been their failure to produce much of anything from their farm system.

Sadly for us, the Sox system is just as bad if not worse. What applies to the Cubs applies to the Sox even more so - until we start developing our own talent, we're going to have trouble competing.

I agree, however unlike the Cubs the Sox have made trades in getting young major league talent (Garland, Floyd, Danks, Quentin, Konerko, Rios to an extent).

Frontman
08-18-2010, 03:53 PM
I agree, however unlike the Cubs the Sox have made trades in getting young major league talent (Garland, Floyd, Danks, Quentin, Konerko, Rios to an extent).

And unlike the Cubs; Kenny isn't about to get tied up with 8+ year deals for players heading into the back half of their careers.

The Cubs have a few YEARS ahead of sub-par performances; given how handcuffed they are to Hendry's AMAZING negotiation skills to sign talent for longer and for more than they are worth.

TDog
08-18-2010, 05:17 PM
Yes, but the decade "the teens" starts with 10 unless you count 20 as a teen number. Most people don't...

Decades are arbitrary. When people refer to the 1960s, they begin in 1960 and don't include 1970. When people talk about that decade when there was an amateur draft in baseball but no free agency, they start in the middle of the 1960s. And, come to think of it, today marks the beginning of the first decade in the rest of my life, may such a thing be measured in decades.

Centuries are not arbitrary if you are referring to them by ordinal number --first, second, thirteenth, 21st etc. If you are referring to the first decade of the 21st century, we are in the final year of that. If you are talking about the first year of the '10s or 'teens, we are just beginning that.

I suppose you could make a calendar that begins with the Cubs last winning the World Series, which happened about a month after Rosh Hashanah, marking Jewish New Year, in 1908. That would make October AD 1908 year 1 ACUB. It's all pretty much arbitrary.

As for reasons the Cubs haven't won since, the belief used to be that they were worn down by all those home day games -- the long drought of not even getting to the World Series beginning after World War II when more games were being played at night. The 1969 collapse, which left the Cubs a really awful team in September, was blamed on the summer afternoon heat draining the players, and Leo Durocher didn't help matters by playing his regulars ever day, even catching Randy Hundley in both ends of a doubleheader on a regular basis.

Since the Cubs got lights, the Cubs not going to the World Series is even more perplexing, and probably has a lot to do with bad luck. The Padres, who were an expansion team in 1969, and who, I believe, lost 110 games that season, have been to the World Series twice. Oddly enough, I attended the first-ever San Diego World Series game after the Padres dispatched the Cubs despite trailing 2-0 in a best of 5 NLCS.

The later-expansion Florida Marlins have never finished first, but they have won the World Series twice, oddly enough once after dispatching the Cubs despite trailing the Cubs 3-1 in a best of 7 NLCS.

It's no wonder Cubs fans believe in curses.

TornLabrum
08-18-2010, 06:16 PM
Considering this is the first year in the decade, I doubt it. :tongue:

Technically, since there was no year 0, this is the last year of the previous decade. Besides which a decade can be any ten-year period. :tongue:

hangwithem
08-19-2010, 01:41 AM
I kinda feel sorry for the Cubs. It is mind-blogging that the team has not won the World Series in 102 years. I don't think Wrigley Field can be used as an excuse.

I mean, the Marlins have never finished first, plays in a crappy football stadium where nobody goes to the games, but have won two World Series in 13 years.

The Tampa Bay Rays have probably the worst home field/arena/stadium in all of major pro sports and they have gone to the World Series recently.

I think Stone Pony was right. The team has been built horribly for a franchise that plays half its season with the wind blowing in, and the other half with the win blowing out. When Ryan Theriot was leading the team with 13 steals before being dealt to the Dodgers, it tells you a bunch about the versatility of the roster. The Cubs need more players like Starlin Castro who are athletic, can play in different spots are not limited fundamentally flawed--and more importantly are good.

Maybe it was not such a good idea for the Cubs to trade Josh Hamilton to the Reds in 2006 for cash.

chisoxfanatic
08-19-2010, 01:44 AM
Are they really going to highlight the tons of day games and the constant change of wind directions when both the Cubs and their opponents are playing under the exact same circumstances in games @ Wrigley Field? Lame!

Nellie_Fox
08-19-2010, 02:37 AM
I think everyone who quibbles over the lack of a Year 0 should get a room with Rush Limbaugh where they'll all stress over how the new century started in 2001 and not 2000 like the rest of us believe.
Yeah, we should just all agree to go along with those who are wrong, because there are more of them. What "the rest of us believe" is more important than a little thing like facts.

Fenway
08-19-2010, 07:34 AM
How are things in comparison for the Red Sox? I know they've done a bunch of renovations lately...and of course they don't have the whole "day games" thing to deal with. But is there a feeling there that the practice/training facilities for the BoSox are outdated with no room to upgrade?

If you read down in this article you can see how Boston has tried to modernize the players facilities as much as possible.

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2595:red-sox-announce-year-viii-improvements-to-fenway-park&catid=41:facility-news&Itemid=56

One example - the old players parking lot was relocated and the home clubhouse was expanded on the land. In a stroke of genius - the roof of the new clubhouse is used as a patio/concession area that is level with the top of the grandstand.

Even my hardcore Cub fans admit after seeing Fenway how apparent the cheapness of the Tribune was after seeing the money poured into Fenway.

Fenway has warts - imagine the challenges if it had been decided to renovate Comiskey. Like Comiskey there are some awful seats along the outfield lines. I would guess the Boston Americans visited Chicago in 1910-1 to get ideas for Fenway. Braves Field in turn used some of Fenway's ideas a couple of years later. Braves Field was actually the first park built that didn't have to fit itself into city blocks as behind the outfield was the main New York Central railyard - which when the wind blew in was a problem.

I have heard that Ricketts has been at Fenway a few times this season taking notes.

Fenway
08-19-2010, 07:56 AM
Not winning a World Series since 1908 is one thing - not winning a PENNANT since 1945 is staggering.

Throw in that the Cubs have played six games since 1945 where all they had to do was win one to win a pennant.

Now factor in that they had been in TEN World Series in a 40 year span (1906-1945) and it makes the past 65 years simply astonishing.

They still have an all-time winning record vs St Louis which shows how good they were in the first half of the 20th Century.

Except for Montreal/Washington (1969) and Washington/Texas (1961) every other franchise has won a pennant.




I kinda feel sorry for the Cubs. It is mind-blogging that the team has not won the World Series in 102 years. I don't think Wrigley Field can be used as an excuse.

I mean, the Marlins have never finished first, plays in a crappy football stadium where nobody goes to the games, but have won two World Series in 13 years.

The Tampa Bay Rays have probably the worst home field/arena/stadium in all of major pro sports and they have gone to the World Series recently.

I think Stone Pony was right. The team has been built horribly for a franchise that plays half its season with the wind blowing in, and the other half with the win blowing out. When Ryan Theriot was leading the team with 13 steals before being dealt to the Dodgers, it tells you a bunch about the versatility of the roster. The Cubs need more players like Starlin Castro who are athletic, can play in different spots are not limited fundamentally flawed--and more importantly are good.

Maybe it was not such a good idea for the Cubs to trade Josh Hamilton to the Reds in 2006 for cash.

DumpJerry
08-19-2010, 08:33 AM
Are they really going to highlight the tons of day games and the constant change of wind directions when both the Cubs and their opponents are playing under the exact same circumstances in games @ Wrigley Field? Lame!
Not lame at all. The Cubs have to play there 81 times a year, the other teams play, at the most, nine times a year. Therefore ALL the shortcomings in the story apply only to the Cubs and not the other teams. The shift in wind direction is only one of the issues. The lack of training/conditioning opportunities looms large in why the Cubs can't gain a true Twins-esque homefield advantage.

This is not the same as saying "we lost last night because it was cold and raining" because we're talking 81 games, not one game.

g0g0
08-19-2010, 08:45 AM
Not lame at all. The Cubs have to play there 81 times a year, the other teams play, at the most, nine times a year. Therefore ALL the shortcomings in the story apply only to the Cubs and not the other teams.

+1

Cubs have to endure it 100% of the time for home games. It doesn't give them an excuse though as Wrigley is very hitter friendly and the wind blows out a lot of the time.

ewokpelts
08-19-2010, 09:14 AM
Are they really going to highlight the tons of day games and the constant change of wind directions when both the Cubs and their opponents are playing under the exact same circumstances in games @ Wrigley Field? Lame!the other teams PREPARE for it. where the cubs brass just ASSUME cubs players can handle it.

C-Dawg
08-19-2010, 09:16 AM
It was interesting a few years ago when Dusty Baker said some bad things about the ballpark. Stuff like "its hard to see the field when I'm in the dugout". Must have been something to do with the "crown" on the field, which was supposedly addressed when it was remodeled by Roger Bossard.

Hitmen77
08-19-2010, 10:13 AM
Not winning a World Series since 1908 is one thing - not winning a PENNANT since 1945 is staggering.

Throw in that the Cubs have played six games since 1945 where all they had to do was win one to win a pennant.

Now factor in that they had been in TEN World Series in a 40 year span (1906-1945) and it makes the past 65 years simply astonishing.

They still have an all-time winning record vs St Louis which shows how good they were in the first half of the 20th Century.

Except for Montreal/Washington (1969) and Washington/Texas (1961) every other franchise has won a pennant.

Don't forget Seattle (1977). The Mariners blew their big pennant chance in the late 90s/early 00s. Aside from those 3 expansion teams and the Cubs, every other team has won a pennant since 1979.

That 65 year drought of even making it to the championship round is indeed astonishing. As far as the Wrigley "factor" goes, in the end it really comes down to the Cubs having bad teams for most of the last 65 years. I remember that Hangar18 used to love to point out that the Cubs had only three(?) 90-win seasons since 1945. I think that during the stretch between 1946 and 2000 they had few seasons that were even above .500...the only consistent string above .500 was in the late 60s.

Fenway
08-19-2010, 10:55 AM
Me bad on Seattle

The Flubbies should have won a pennant in 84 and might have given the Tigers trouble in the series.

What happened in 2003 just was astonishing.

That is where the Red Sox severed any relationship with the Cubs. Boston had their own disaster in 2003 but camne roaring back the next year. The Flubbies haven't won a playoff game since.

What the Chicago media did to Steve Bartman was borderline criminal telling people where he lived and worked????

Rickett's needs to make an overture to that man, let him throw out the first pitch, whatever. I really don't think fan reaction would be hostile.

The 69 Cubs just refused to admit the Mets had become a good team. Atlanta made the same mistake as did Baltimore.

Anywhoo this YEAR ONE slogan sure worked out well for them




Don't forget Seattle (1977). They blew their big pennant chance in the late 90s/early 00s. Aside from those 3 expansion teams and the Cubs, every other team has won a pennant since 1979.

That 65 year drought of even making it to the championship round is indeed astonishing. As far as the Wrigley "factor" goes, in the end it really comes down to the Cubs having bad teams for most of the last 65 years. I remember that Hangar18 used to love to point out that the Cubs had only three(?) 90-win seasons since 1945. I think that during the stretch between 1946 and 2000 they had few seasons that were even above .500...the only consistent string above .500 was in the late 60s.

g0g0
08-19-2010, 11:04 AM
Don't forget Seattle (1977). They blew their big pennant chance in the late 90s/early 00s. Aside from those 3 expansion teams and the Cubs, every other team has won a pennant since 1979.

That 65 year drought of even making it to the championship round is indeed astonishing. As far as the Wrigley "factor" goes, in the end it really comes down to the Cubs having bad teams for most of the last 65 years. I remember that Hangar18 used to love to point out that the Cubs had only three(?) 90-win seasons since 1945. I think that during the stretch between 1946 and 2000 they had few seasons that were even above .500...the only consistent string above .500 was in the late 60s.

Unfortunately for them, they ran into some good Cards teams in the 60's (not to mention trading them Lou Brock!) and then the Big Red Machine and Pirates in the 70's. Between 1960 and 1982, 8 WS titles came out of what's now the NL Central.

chisoxfanatic
08-19-2010, 02:16 PM
Not lame at all. The Cubs have to play there 81 times a year, the other teams play, at the most, nine times a year. Therefore ALL the shortcomings in the story apply only to the Cubs and not the other teams. The shift in wind direction is only one of the issues. The lack of training/conditioning opportunities looms large in why the Cubs can't gain a true Twins-esque homefield advantage.

This is not the same as saying "we lost last night because it was cold and raining" because we're talking 81 games, not one game.
+1

Cubs have to endure it 100% of the time for home games. It doesn't give them an excuse though as Wrigley is very hitter friendly and the wind blows out a lot of the time.
They do play 100% of their games in those conditions, so they should know what to expect. They should be able to use it as a HFA, but they don't. That's their own fault.

DumpJerry
08-19-2010, 03:03 PM
They do play 100% of their games in those conditions, so they should know what to expect. They should be able to use it as a HFA, but they don't. That's their own fault.
:scratch:? How can they use the lack of adequate training facilities to their advantage? Force visiting teams to eat three dozen donuts per player the night before games?

They don't have the time to practice before games like the other 29 teams do when at home. They have **** for batting cages and indoor pitching facilities. They have **** facilities for trainers to work on players' bumps and bruises.

The Cubs do not have a home field advantage. Re-read the article. It is not just is the wind blowing in or out, that is the least of the problems with Teh Urinal. I'm wondering if this is why Soriano got an eight year deal. He probably said to his agent "that place is crap. Tell them I'll accept only eight years, guaranteed" in hopes the Cubs walk away and he winds up with a better equipped home field. The Cubs called his bluff.

FielderJones
08-19-2010, 03:27 PM
The Cubs do not have a home field advantage. Re-read the article. It is not just is the wind blowing in or out, that is the least of the problems with Teh Urinal.

For the Cubs to have home field advantage in The Urinal, the following would have to happen:


No interleague play
NL contracts to 8 teams
No teams west of Saint Louis
All teams play more than half the season during daytime
Rail travel for all teams road trips

That would simulate the era where the Cubs made the World Series 10 times in 40 years.

downstairs
08-19-2010, 03:30 PM
Great article. Most of those reasons are no small matter- especially in a game where the tiniest advantage may be all you need to go from mediocre to great.

If 90% of my days on a job were the 3-11 shift, as Dusty says, I would absolutely lothe that one day you have to get there at 9am.

As well, I think its become more important to build a park that has only one characteristic: hitters park or pitchers park. Then build your team to that. Otherwise its almost like you're losing home games and turning them into away games.

chisoxfanatic
08-19-2010, 03:56 PM
:scratch:? How can they use the lack of adequate training facilities to their advantage? Force visiting teams to eat three dozen donuts per player the night before games?

They don't have the time to practice before games like the other 29 teams do when at home. They have **** for batting cages and indoor pitching facilities. They have **** facilities for trainers to work on players' bumps and bruises.

The Cubs do not have a home field advantage. Re-read the article. It is not just is the wind blowing in or out, that is the least of the problems with Teh Urinal. I'm wondering if this is why Soriano got an eight year deal. He probably said to his agent "that place is crap. Tell them I'll accept only eight years, guaranteed" in hopes the Cubs walk away and he winds up with a better equipped home field. The Cubs called his bluff.

The ONLY TWO things I even mentioned in my post were the large number of day games and the unpredictable change in the wind direction. Both of those ARE lame reasons for the Cubs not playing well at Wrigley Field (the Cubs should be used to the wind and game times much more than their opponents, yet their opponents don't seem to have problems with it). I did not even mention the training facilities (or lack thereof) in my post. So, your bringing this up has nothing to do with the things from the article that I highlighted that ARE lame.

If the Cubs thought they had such ****ty conditions, they'd have moved a while ago. It doesn't seem they really care.

DumpJerry
08-19-2010, 04:02 PM
The ONLY TWO things I even mentioned in my post were the large number of day games and the unpredictable change in the wind direction. Both of those ARE lame reasons for the Cubs not playing well at Wrigley Field. I did not even mention the training facilities (or lack thereof) in my post. So, your bringing this up has nothing to do with the things from the article that I highlighted that ARE lame.

If the Cubs thought they had such ****ty conditions, they'd have moved a while ago. It doesn't seem they really care.
Those are just two of the myriad of reasons cited in the article. Also, they are not lame. The high number of day games is precisely why players cannot get in extra time on skill sharpening like players on the other 29 teams who can show up at Noon at their home parks to work on skills.

The Cubs could not move a while ago. Before Tribco bought the team, they did not have the money to move. After Tribco bought the team, Wrigley was turned into a tourist desitination, moving would have killed off too many ticket sales.

Finally, the article did not say the winds are unpredictable. It said in the cooler months, the wind blows one way, in the warmer months, the other way. Very predictable. The article faulted the Cubs for focusing mainly on players for the months when the wind blows out. Since the casual fan likes home runs, getting a team like, say, the Twins, which would do well with little long ball but plenty of wins would kill off a big portion of their ticket sales.

chisoxfanatic
08-19-2010, 04:18 PM
That doesn't change the fact that the Cubs opponents have NO problem adjusting. Blaming the Cubs' inability to play well at home on Wrigley Field is lame, as their opponents are given the exact same conditions to play under on each specific game day.

g0g0
08-19-2010, 04:29 PM
That doesn't change the fact that the Cubs opponents have NO problem adjusting. Blaming the Cubs' inability to play well at home on Wrigley Field is lame, as their opponents are given the exact same conditions to play under on each specific game day.

You're missing the whole point, but that's okay. Go ahead and keep making the same point over and over... :rolleyes:

chisoxfanatic
08-19-2010, 04:34 PM
You're missing the whole point, but that's okay. Go ahead and keep making the same point over and over... :rolleyes:
Because it's true. Theorists can blame "quirks" about Wrigley Field...I blame it on the Cubs just being a sucky team for so long. If people are going to blame a ballpark for a century of futillity, then I can't help them.

Iwritecode
08-19-2010, 04:38 PM
That doesn't change the fact that the Cubs opponents have NO problem adjusting. Blaming the Cubs' inability to play well at home on Wrigley Field is lame, as their opponents are given the exact same conditions to play under on each specific game day.

Adjusting to playing a day game a few times a year =/= adjusting to playing day games 50+ times a year.

Cubs opponents also don't have to adjust to not having time for extra work on their home field because of said day games.

doublem23
08-19-2010, 04:48 PM
Adjusting to playing a day game a few times a year =/= adjusting to playing day games 50+ times a year.

Yeah, in theory that should work out to the Cubs' favor.

I'm sorry, these guys are professional baseball players, they don't need to be at the park doing ground ball drills all morning. It's an interesting idea, but ultimately silly, IMO.

I have heard that sometimed the abundance of night games allows players more time to indulge in the nightlife, though. :dunno:

Iwritecode
08-19-2010, 05:04 PM
Yeah, in theory that should work out to the Cubs' favor.

I'm sorry, these guys are professional baseball players, they don't need to be at the park doing ground ball drills all morning. It's an interesting idea, but ultimately silly, IMO.

I have heard that sometimed the abundance of night games allows players more time to indulge in the nightlife, though. :dunno:

I do remember hearing about ex-Cubs players complaining about the number of day games they had to play.

TheOldRoman
08-19-2010, 05:08 PM
For the Cubs to have home field advantage in The Urinal, the following would have to happen:


No interleague play
NL contracts to 8 teams
No teams west of Saint Louis
All teams play more than half the season during daytime
Rail travel for all teams road trips
That would simulate the era where the Cubs made the World Series 10 times in 40 years.Wow, I didn't realize they had won 10 pennants. As astonishing at their 102 year championship and 65 year pennant drought are, winning only 2 out of 10 World Series is pathetic in its own right.

Hitmen77
08-19-2010, 05:32 PM
Wow, I didn't realize they had won 10 pennants. As astonishing at their 102 year championship and 65 year pennant drought are, winning only 2 out of 10 World Series is pathetic in its own right.

They lost 7 World Series appearances in a row between 1910 and 1945.

They also lost a World Series in 1906 to the Hitless Wonders. :cool:

g0g0
08-19-2010, 07:56 PM
Wow, I didn't realize they had won 10 pennants. As astonishing at their 102 year championship and 65 year pennant drought are, winning only 2 out of 10 World Series is pathetic in its own right.

Almost 1/2 of those were played vs. Detroit. They also ran into a couple of good Yankees teams with Ruth, Lefty Gomez, Dickey, Dimaggio and Gehrig. No shame losing to them!

gogosox675
08-19-2010, 11:36 PM
It's just pathetic that the Cubs can't let go of Wrigley Field. If talks even began to replace Wrigley Field, the fans would be in an uproar. I wasn't around when Comiskey Park was replaced and I'm sure it was bittersweet, but the Sox needed modern facilities to be consistently competitive. Why can't the Cubs and their fans grasp that? I guess that's why they are the Cubs...

DumpJerry
08-20-2010, 12:03 AM
It's just pathetic that the Cubs can't let go of Wrigley Field. If talks even began to replace Wrigley Field, the fans would be in an uproar. I wasn't around when Comiskey Park was replaced and I'm sure it was bittersweet, but the Sox needed modern facilities to be consistently competitive. Why can't the Cubs and their fans grasp that? I guess that's why they are the Cubs...
We chained ourselves to the arches and posts.

1990 was a sad season for those of us who grew up there. I was at the next to last game there. I took an extra long walk all over the park before the game, spent the game looking around taking it all in for the last time.:whiner:

That was 20 years ago now, so it is now years from then and I can say I was there.:D:

PeteWard
08-20-2010, 12:20 AM
Whenever I see Year O I think of the Trent Reznor album.

I think of Pol Pot. :(:

g0g0
08-20-2010, 11:25 AM
It's just pathetic that the Cubs can't let go of Wrigley Field. If talks even began to replace Wrigley Field, the fans would be in an uproar. I wasn't around when Comiskey Park was replaced and I'm sure it was bittersweet, but the Sox needed modern facilities to be consistently competitive. Why can't the Cubs and their fans grasp that? I guess that's why they are the Cubs...

I think you have that with any team and any sport. I know how much people (and myself) enjoyed the Stadium where the Blackhawks used to play. You'll probably hear a few stories about old Comiskey too. It's like looking at the home you grew up with getting torn down.

BringHomeDaBacon
08-20-2010, 11:50 AM
Despite all the other shortcomings over the last 20 years or so the ballpark has been a huge advantage in terms of revenue. Too bad they've mostly pissed that advantage down their leg and into the bank accounts of Soriano, Zambrano et al.

lpneck
08-20-2010, 03:50 PM
That was 20 years ago now, so it is now years from then and I can say I was there.:D:

My favorite sign from the bleachers during the 1990 season:

"Years from now, you'll park here."

cub killer
09-05-2010, 02:36 AM
Not winning a World Series since 1908 is one thing - not winning a PENNANT since 1945 is staggering.

Throw in that the Cubs have played six games since 1945 where all they had to do was win one to win a pennant.

Now factor in that they had been in TEN World Series in a 40 year span (1906-1945) and it makes the past 65 years simply astonishing.

They still have an all-time winning record vs St Louis which shows how good they were in the first half of the 20th Century.

Except for Montreal/Washington (1969) and Washington/Texas (1961) every other franchise has won a pennant.
Not to mention all the teams that have made it to their championship round since 1945 in all other sports, be it the Superbowl, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Final, ArenaBowl, Calder Cup, Turner Cup, etc. I don't think there's any other team, in any sport, that existed in 1945 that hasn't made it to its championship round since the cubs last did.

The cubs have failed to win a title contested by only 16 teams (less than 16 before 1998) since 1945. In that same time frame, there have been association football clubs who have won the Intercontinental Cup/World Club Championship multiple times, and that title has been contested by hundreds of teams, and now currently by more than a thousand.

Hitmen77
09-05-2010, 02:47 PM
Not to mention all the teams that have made it to their championship round since 1945 in all other sports, be it the Superbowl, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Final, ArenaBowl, Calder Cup, Turner Cup, etc. I don't think there's any other team, in any sport, that existed in 1945 that hasn't made it to its championship round since the cubs last did.

The cubs have failed to win a title contested by only 16 teams (less than 16 before 1998) since 1945. In that same time frame, there have been association football clubs who have won the Intercontinental Cup/World Club Championship multiple times, and that title has been contested by hundreds of teams, and now currently by more than a thousand.

....and none of those other teams that even come close to having such a drought has a fanbase that goes around acting like they are one of their league's "storied" franchises.

The longest drought in the NFL for appearing in the championship game belongs to the Detroit Lions (1957). After them is the Cleveland Browns (1965). For the Browns, that's only because the NFL has an unconventional policy to treat the 1999 expansion Browns as an official continuation of the old Browns while the Ravens (the original Browns franchise) won the Super Bowl in 2000.

In the NBA the longest droughts are the Kings ('51) and the Hawks ('61). In the NHL, it's the Maple Leafs ('67).

whitesoxfan1986
09-05-2010, 05:55 PM
....and none of those other teams that even come close to having such a drought has a fanbase that goes around acting like they are one of their league's "storied" franchises.

The longest drought in the NFL for appearing in the championship game belongs to the Detroit Lions (1957). After them is the Cleveland Browns (1965). For the Browns, that's only because the NFL has an unconventional policy to treat the 1999 expansion Browns as an official continuation of the old Browns while the Ravens (the original Browns franchise) won the Super Bowl in 2000.

In the NBA the longest droughts are the Kings ('51) and the Hawks ('61). In the NHL, it's the Maple Leafs ('67).
Maple Leafs? They were an original six team, and I'm sure they have had many HHOF players. Throw in the fact that probably 70-80% of Ontario are fans of the Maple Leafs, I'd think there would be a bunch of those type of fans who think the Maple Leafs' **** doesn't stink, although I could be seriously mistaken. The only difference I can see with the Cubs and the Maple Leafs is that the Maple Leafs can never say that they are something like "Canada's Team" because the Canadiens are the Yankees of the NHL.

SI1020
09-05-2010, 11:11 PM
In the NBA the longest droughts are the Kings ('51) and the Hawks ('61). The Hawks, who were in St. Louis at the time won the NBA Championship in 1958, defeating the Boston Celtics 4 games to 2 in the finals. Between 1957 and 1969 the Celtics won 11 NBA titles out of 13, including 8 in a row from 1959-66.

SOXPHILE
09-07-2010, 03:27 PM
Not to mention all the teams that have made it to their championship round since 1945 in all other sports, be it the Superbowl, NBA Finals, Stanley Cup Final, ArenaBowl, Calder Cup, Turner Cup, etc. I don't think there's any other team, in any sport, that existed in 1945 that hasn't made it to its championship round since the cubs last did.

The cubs have failed to win a title contested by only 16 teams (less than 16 before 1998) since 1945. In that same time frame, there have been association football clubs who have won the Intercontinental Cup/World Club Championship multiple times, and that title has been contested by hundreds of teams, and now currently by more than a thousand.

That is correct. In baseball, every single other team that was in existance in 1945,- the year of the Cubs last (LOSING) appearance,- has since won at least one World Series. Also, 6 other teams that came into existance after 1945, (no sooner than 15 years after 1945), have also won at least one World Series. Every single NFL, NBA and NHL team that was in existance in 1945 has won a championship since then, as well as many other expansion teams that came into existance after 1945. There is not any other team in any of the four pro sports leagues today, who were also around in 1945, that has not won at least one championship.