PDA

View Full Version : SI Article: "Cubs begin 97th season without title"


WhiteSoxFan84
02-16-2006, 05:25 AM
The title alone cracks me up :redneck


The Cubs haven't been in the World Series since 1945 -- they were five outs away in 2003 before faltering in the NL Championship Series -- and haven't won one since 1908.

"To say the pressure is on us is taking it really lightly," Dempster said. "Because between the Red Sox (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/teams/red_sox) and the White Sox (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/teams/white_sox) winning the last two World Series, I think the first time we strike out at home or lose, we're definitely going to get booed."


Linky (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/02/16/cubs.camp.ap/)

C-Dawg
02-16-2006, 06:49 AM
Yeah, we're coming up on the 2-year anniversary of SI's infamous "April Fool's" edition, featuring the headline "Hell Freezes Over, The Cubs Will Win the World Series".

SOXSINCE'70
02-16-2006, 06:54 AM
Yeah, we're coming up on the 2-year anniversary of SI's infamous "April Fool's" edition, featuring the headline "Hell Freezes Over, The Cubs Will Win the World Series".

I know White Sox fans don't believe in curses,but I pray
they make the Yankmees their cover boys for their 2006
season preview.If they claim "The White Sox will repeat",
well,who knows what will happen next.The SI cover jinx may
be too big a curse to laugh at.When they did that "Hell" cover 2 years
ago,the sCrUBS went into the toilet after the ASB (thankfully).
I certainly don't want the Sox to repeat that feat.

voodoochile
02-16-2006, 08:53 AM
Technically speaking they are starting the 98th season. The 97th year passed in October...

havelj
02-16-2006, 09:55 AM
Two things to add:

The next longest drought are the Indians which happened 46 years later!

What many Cub fans don't realize is that the 1945 World Series appearance only happened due to World War II. The St. Louis Cardinals had Stan Musial and some of their other best players in the war.

TDog
02-16-2006, 11:03 AM
Two things to add:

The next longest drought are the Indians which happened 46 years later!

What many Cub fans don't realize is that the 1945 World Series appearance only happened due to World War II. The St. Louis Cardinals had Stan Musial and some of their other best players in the war.

And the Cubs only won the NL in their last championship season of 1908 because Fred Merkle of the Giants failed to touch second base in an apparent win over the Cubs that had to be played over at the end of the season.

Iwritecode
02-17-2006, 11:02 AM
And the Cubs only won the NL in their last championship season of 1908 because Fred Merkle of the Giants failed to touch second base in an apparent win over the Cubs that had to be played over at the end of the season.

It was never proven that it was the actual game ball that Evers had when he touched second. Nobody is really sure what happened to the game ball and where the ball he got came from...

Hangar18
02-17-2006, 11:18 AM
Two things to add:

The next longest drought are the Indians which happened 46 years later!

What many Cub fans don't realize is that the 1945 World Series appearance only happened due to World War II. The St. Louis Cardinals had Stan Musial and some of their other best players in the war.


I love reading smoking gun Truth & Fact stuff on this website. The Trib is probably pissed you wrote about this

santo=dorf
02-17-2006, 11:18 AM
And the Cubs only won the NL in their last championship season of 1908 because Fred Merkle of the Giants failed to touch second base in an apparent win over the Cubs that had to be played over at the end of the season.
Two things to add:

The next longest drought are the Indians which happened 46 years later!

What many Cub fans don't realize is that the 1945 World Series appearance only happened due to World War II. The St. Louis Cardinals had Stan Musial and some of their other best players in the war.

Oh boy, Hangar is really going to eat this up.

TomBradley72
02-17-2006, 11:27 AM
What many Cub fans don't realize is that the 1945 World Series appearance only happened due to World War II. The St. Louis Cardinals had Stan Musial and some of their other best players in the war.

A great point...winning the 1945 World Series during WWII is equivalent to winning a championship with "replacement players" during a strike year. I mean c'mon...the year before the St. Louis Browns won the World Series...and had this guy as an OF the year the Cubbies won their last World Series:

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:xc558C6GjAgdsM:www.coalregion.com/images/petegray.gif (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.coalregion.com/images/petegray.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.coalregion.com/Famous/petegray.htm&h=216&w=296&sz=35&tbnid=xc558C6GjAgdsM:&tbnh=81&tbnw=111&hl=en&start=16&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPete%2BGray%2Bphoto%26svnum%3D10%26hl %3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN)

TommyJohn
02-17-2006, 11:41 AM
Two things to add:

The next longest drought are the Indians which happened 46 years later!

What many Cub fans don't realize is that the 1945 World Series appearance only happened due to World War II. The St. Louis Cardinals had Stan Musial and some of their other best players in the war.

Puh-leeze. A pennant is a pennant. One could easily counter that the
only reason the White Sox won in 1959 was because the Yankees were
beset by injuries and had an "off-year."

TommyJohn
02-17-2006, 11:45 AM
It was never proven that it was the actual game ball that Evers had when he touched second. Nobody is really sure what happened to the game ball and where the ball he got came from...

Which means that our Cubbies cheated their way to their last World Series
title. I have always wanted to bring this up when I see threads where a few
are fulminating from remarks by bitter, angry, jealous, wah wah wah Cub fans
to the effect that the White Sox "cheated." Well, Tinker and Evers were
blatant about it, pretty much. I just never did because it isn't worth it. Let
them stew. But it is a point worth making.

SOXPHILE
02-17-2006, 11:52 AM
A great point...winning the 1945 World Series during WWII is equivalent to winning a championship with "replacement players" during a strike year. I mean c'mon...the year before the St. Louis Browns won the World Series...and had this guy as an OF the year the Cubbies won their last World Series:

http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:xc558C6GjAgdsM:www.coalregion.com/images/petegray.gif (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.coalregion.com/images/petegray.gif&imgrefurl=http://www.coalregion.com/Famous/petegray.htm&h=216&w=296&sz=35&tbnid=xc558C6GjAgdsM:&tbnh=81&tbnw=111&hl=en&start=16&prev=/images%3Fq%3DPete%2BGray%2Bphoto%26svnum%3D10%26hl %3Den%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26sa%3DN)

Actually, the Cardinals won the '44 Series. They BEAT the St. Louis Browns. I know what you're saying though.

Iwritecode
02-17-2006, 11:56 AM
Which means that our Cubbies cheated their way to their last World Series
title. I have always wanted to bring this up when I see threads where a few
are fulminating from remarks by bitter, angry, jealous, wah wah wah Cub fans
to the effect that the White Sox "cheated." Well, Tinker and Evers were
blatant about it, pretty much. I just never did because it isn't worth it. Let
them stew. But it is a point worth making.

From what I remember reading about it, the umpire never even knew the runner didn't touch second until Evers told him. Then he called the runner out still having no idea how Evers got the ball.

Does the runner on first even have to touch second base on a game winning hit for the run to count?

SOXPHILE
02-17-2006, 12:05 PM
Yes, he has to make it to second base, otherwise he would be considered a force out, and the run doesn't count.

Ol' No. 2
02-17-2006, 12:06 PM
From what I remember reading about it, the umpire never even knew the runner didn't touch second until Evers told him. Then he called the runner out still having no idea how Evers got the ball.

Does the runner on first even have to touch second base on a game winning hit for the run to count?At the time it was fairly routine for players to do what Merkle did. The rule has been since clarified, so yes, the runner has to touch second.

TommyJohn
02-17-2006, 12:15 PM
From what I remember reading about it, the umpire never even knew the runner didn't touch second until Evers told him. Then he called the runner out still having no idea how Evers got the ball.

Does the runner on first even have to touch second base on a game winning hit for the run to count?

Back then it was prety much routine to simply walk off the field when a
game-winning hit was delivered, which is what Merkle did. The losing team
pretty much never bothered with it. I do know that because the hit was a
single, Merkle under the rules had to touch second or could technically be
forced out. Tinker and Evers for some reason decided that one time to take
advantage of the lapse in rules. I also read some accounts that said that
as the Cubs were searching for the ball, some Giants ran back to the
clubhouse to get Merkle.

Also, the rules stated that the ball used for the out had to be the same one
put into play. "Iron Man" Joe McGinnity saw the Cubs retrieving the ball, had
an idea what they were up to, and intercepted it and heaved it into the
stands. Moments later Tinker and Evers emerged with a ball and touched
second before Merkle could get back. The controversy was because a)
Merkle only did what others did in that era and b) there was some doubt
that Tinker and Evers had produced the same ball for the out. If they didn't
then the out was null and the Giants win should've stood. Tinker and Evers
claimed that they went into the stands, found the guy with the ball and
forcibly took it from him.

The Giants appealed the out call and lost. The game was declared a tie
and ordered replayed if the Giants and Cubs were tied for 1st at the end
of the season. They were and the rest is history.

Giant fans and media never let Merkle live it down. They all but roasted
him on an open flame for what he did. John McGraw, for his part, fiercely
defended Merkle and insisted that he was not the reason the Giants lost
that year. But hey, he made a great scapegoat for people to kick and
abuse. I even read that one 1908 sportswriter, Giuseppe Mariotti, obsessed
over Merkle in every Giant column he wrote for the next 45 years.
Sven Munson, another sportswriter, vowed to kill Merkle first chance he got.