The curse of Wrigley Field?

[Magnetic Curses]

Except for the White Sox and Red Sox.

 

who have both won multiple titles since 1917.

The Cubs, White Sox, and Red Sox make it 3 teams who have had ridiculously long droughts. 3 is a pretty significant number, especially when over the majority of those years there were far fewer teams in the majors.

 

While the Cubs' drought seems almost too absurd, it hasn't been a fluke occurrence in MLB.

 

okay, since 1945, the red sox have appeared in 5 world series, the white sox, 2.

 

"strange things continue to happen at wrigley field."

 

i don't know why it's so hard to at least admit that there's something strange about all of it, even if you don't believe in curses.

[Fro]

They tried throwing money at the problem...obviously it isn't working...I dunno.....if this team finishes below .500 again I'd say blow it all up.....bring in Billy Beane or a Billy Beane disciple and try that method.

 

Cuban needs to get the team... he runs the Mavs based on a lot of statistical analysis (even though he's discovered that stats aren't great for player selection in the NBA since the coach has too much impact).

 

http://www.blogmaverick.com/2004/04/01/moneyball-for-the-nba/

http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/stories/MYSA040206.10C.COL.BKNmonroe.rockets.2b7eea0.html

 

We'd be in the playoffs nearly every year under Cuban once he got his system set up. Nobody in the NL can compete with that kind of wise spending plus pure resources unless the Mets hire a Moneyball guy.

Edited April 14, 2007 by Fro

[Fred Hornkohl]

Except for the White Sox and Red Sox.

 

who have both won multiple titles since 1917.

 

Just nit picking here..... but the Red Sox have, indeed, won multiple WS since 1917. Namely..... 1918 & 2004.

[Magnetic Curses]

Except for the White Sox and Red Sox.

 

who have both won multiple titles since 1917.

 

Just nit picking here..... but the Red Sox have, indeed, won multiple WS since 1917. Namely..... 1918 & 2004.

 

.....and so have the white sox....1917 & 2005. i wasn't asking a question.

[Jon]

Except for the White Sox and Red Sox.

 

who have both won multiple titles since 1917.

The Cubs, White Sox, and Red Sox make it 3 teams who have had ridiculously long droughts. 3 is a pretty significant number, especially when over the majority of those years there were far fewer teams in the majors.

 

While the Cubs' drought seems almost too absurd, it hasn't been a fluke occurrence in MLB.

 

okay, since 1945, the red sox have appeared in 5 world series, the white sox, 2.

 

"strange things continue to happen at wrigley field."

 

i don't know why it's so hard to at least admit that there's something strange about all of it, even if you don't believe in curses.

And if the Cubs win in the next 10 years, does that mean that there was no curse or that the curse was broken?

 

WS appearances are great and all, but the only thing that counts is the championship. And there were three teams that went through droughts that you would think would be of impossible length.

 

The only strange thing going on at Wrigley is the long, long history of incompetent management. But that's what happens when you've only had a handful of people running the team over the past 90 years.

[Chris]

Curses schmurses.

[Magnetic Curses]

Except for the White Sox and Red Sox.

 

who have both won multiple titles since 1917.

The Cubs, White Sox, and Red Sox make it 3 teams who have had ridiculously long droughts. 3 is a pretty significant number, especially when over the majority of those years there were far fewer teams in the majors.

 

While the Cubs' drought seems almost too absurd, it hasn't been a fluke occurrence in MLB.

 

okay, since 1945, the red sox have appeared in 5 world series, the white sox, 2.

 

"strange things continue to happen at wrigley field."

 

i don't know why it's so hard to at least admit that there's something strange about all of it, even if you don't believe in curses.

And if the Cubs win in the next 10 years, does that mean that there was no curse or that the curse was broken?

 

WS appearances are great and all, but the only thing that counts is the championship. And there were three teams that went through droughts that you would think would be of impossible length.

 

The only strange thing going on at Wrigley is the long, long history of incompetent management. But that's what happens when you've only had a handful of people running the team over the past 90 years.

 

reminds me of a simpson's line for some reason:

 

"there's no mystery about willie. why, he simply disappeared."

 

you seriously haven't noticed anything weird concerning this run of bad luck?

 

as i said, bad management or not, they should have been able to back into the world series since 1945 at some point. hell, the brewers have been to a WS since then.

[d_money]

Except for the White Sox and Red Sox.

 

who have both won multiple titles since 1917.

The Cubs, White Sox, and Red Sox make it 3 teams who have had ridiculously long droughts. 3 is a pretty significant number, especially when over the majority of those years there were far fewer teams in the majors.

 

While the Cubs' drought seems almost too absurd, it hasn't been a fluke occurrence in MLB.

 

okay, since 1945, the red sox have appeared in 5 world series, the white sox, 2.

 

"strange things continue to happen at wrigley field."

 

i don't know why it's so hard to at least admit that there's something strange about all of it, even if you don't believe in curses.

And if the Cubs win in the next 10 years, does that mean that there was no curse or that the curse was broken?

 

WS appearances are great and all, but the only thing that counts is the championship. And there were three teams that went through droughts that you would think would be of impossible length.

 

The only strange thing going on at Wrigley is the long, long history of incompetent management. But that's what happens when you've only had a handful of people running the team over the past 90 years.

 

reminds me of a simpson's line for some reason:

 

"there's no mystery about willie. why, he simply disappeared."

 

you seriously haven't noticed anything weird concerning this run of bad luck?

 

as i said, bad management or not, they should have been able to back into the world series since 1945 at some point. hell, the brewers have been to a WS since then.

 

what do the simpsons have to do w/ anything?

[Magnetic Curses]

Except for the White Sox and Red Sox.

 

who have both won multiple titles since 1917.

The Cubs, White Sox, and Red Sox make it 3 teams who have had ridiculously long droughts. 3 is a pretty significant number, especially when over the majority of those years there were far fewer teams in the majors.

 

While the Cubs' drought seems almost too absurd, it hasn't been a fluke occurrence in MLB.

 

okay, since 1945, the red sox have appeared in 5 world series, the white sox, 2.

 

"strange things continue to happen at wrigley field."

 

i don't know why it's so hard to at least admit that there's something strange about all of it, even if you don't believe in curses.

And if the Cubs win in the next 10 years, does that mean that there was no curse or that the curse was broken?

 

WS appearances are great and all, but the only thing that counts is the championship. And there were three teams that went through droughts that you would think would be of impossible length.

 

The only strange thing going on at Wrigley is the long, long history of incompetent management. But that's what happens when you've only had a handful of people running the team over the past 90 years.

 

reminds me of a simpson's line for some reason:

 

"there's no mystery about willie. why, he simply disappeared."

 

you seriously haven't noticed anything weird concerning this run of bad luck?

 

as i said, bad management or not, they should have been able to back into the world series since 1945 at some point. hell, the brewers have been to a WS since then.

 

what do the simpsons have to do w/ anything?

 

just an interesting way of illuminating my point.

 

perhaps if the simspons were political figures i'd feel the need to take unnecessary shots at them, but they aren't, not really.