What is the worst part?

[Sammys Boombox]

Depends on what the Cubs do in the winter. I could see being excited by the time '09 rolls around. It just depends.

 

Like I've said, you have to keep getting into the playoffs over & over. Eventually you'll win. Part of the problem is that Cubs fans always feel like if they don't win this year, they'll have to wait another 10, 15 years for their next shot. Be a playoff team every year, and that anxiety will vanish. And with the resources at our disposal, there's no reason we shouldn't be a playoff team many more years than we have been in the past.

 

I won't be so sure that this team will get to the playoffs year in and year out. We still don't know who will own this team and there are so many backloaded contracts into players that are just getting older and older. I don't want to even think about next year right now. The regular season doesn't even seem like fun right now. It's just going to be another 6-month wait for a chance to try to win 3 out of 5.

[erik316wttn]

The worst part, thus far, has been the know-it-all Sox fans that think backing into the playoffs on game 163 is somehow better than the Cubs having the best record in the NL and winning the division a week before the season ended.

 

Also, those same Sox fans look at their one win (so far) as better than the 2005 WS because the Cubs didn't win at all.

 

Unfortunately it is better. We won 0 games in October, and they've won 1 and counting. I hate to admit it, but its completely true.

 

It's completely untrue. People used to celebrate division championships. People used to be proud of a great regular season. Don't let TV convince you that this team wasn't special and didn't accomplish something.

 

We accomplished something sure. I'll look back at the regular season fondly. But the White Sox have accomplished more in their season, having won more postseason games than the Cubs did.

 

The White Sox accomplished more in their postseason. They have not accomplished more in their season. I don't even think I'd give a team an advantage based on playoffs unless they went to the world series.

 

Maybe I'm in the minority, but unless the Dodgers win the NL, I'd say the Cubs accomplished more this season. They don't fly flags for Divisional Series wins.

 

I disagree.

 

I'd consider an 84-win pennant-winning season far and away a bigger success than 97 wins with a first-round NLDS sweep.

[SouthSideRyan]

The worst part, thus far, has been the know-it-all Sox fans that think backing into the playoffs on game 163 is somehow better than the Cubs having the best record in the NL and winning the division a week before the season ended.

 

Also, those same Sox fans look at their one win (so far) as better than the 2005 WS because the Cubs didn't win at all.

 

Unfortunately it is better. We won 0 games in October, and they've won 1 and counting. I hate to admit it, but its completely true.

 

It's completely untrue. People used to celebrate division championships. People used to be proud of a great regular season. Don't let TV convince you that this team wasn't special and didn't accomplish something.

 

We accomplished something sure. I'll look back at the regular season fondly. But the White Sox have accomplished more in their season, having won more postseason games than the Cubs did.

 

The White Sox accomplished more in their postseason. They have not accomplished more in their season. I don't even think I'd give a team an advantage based on playoffs unless they went to the world series.

 

Maybe I'm in the minority, but unless the Dodgers win the NL, I'd say the Cubs accomplished more this season. They don't fly flags for Divisional Series wins.

 

I disagree.

 

I'd consider an 84-win pennant-winning season far and away a bigger success than 97 wins with a first-round NLDS sweep.

 

Winning a Divisional series does not = winning a pennant.

[David]

I don't know what the hell the accomplishment stuff is all about, but I'd consider the team approaching 100 wins much better than the 85 win team and, short of actually winning a ring, that (how good the team really was) is all that really matters to me.

 

I will look back at the 2008 Cubs much more fondly than the 03 team. That probably puts me in the minority, too.

[erik316wttn]

The worst part, thus far, has been the know-it-all Sox fans that think backing into the playoffs on game 163 is somehow better than the Cubs having the best record in the NL and winning the division a week before the season ended.

 

Also, those same Sox fans look at their one win (so far) as better than the 2005 WS because the Cubs didn't win at all.

 

Unfortunately it is better. We won 0 games in October, and they've won 1 and counting. I hate to admit it, but its completely true.

 

It's completely untrue. People used to celebrate division championships. People used to be proud of a great regular season. Don't let TV convince you that this team wasn't special and didn't accomplish something.

 

We accomplished something sure. I'll look back at the regular season fondly. But the White Sox have accomplished more in their season, having won more postseason games than the Cubs did.

 

The White Sox accomplished more in their postseason. They have not accomplished more in their season. I don't even think I'd give a team an advantage based on playoffs unless they went to the world series.

 

Maybe I'm in the minority, but unless the Dodgers win the NL, I'd say the Cubs accomplished more this season. They don't fly flags for Divisional Series wins.

 

I disagree.

 

I'd consider an 84-win pennant-winning season far and away a bigger success than 97 wins with a first-round NLDS sweep.

 

Winning a Divisional series does not = winning a pennant.

 

No, but if the Dodgers win the pennant, they accomplished more.

 

I'm sorry, I just can't see how anyone can be happy with this. 97 wins means exactly nothing at this point. The Cubs crapped the bed when it counted most, and the Dodgers didn't. And now the Dodgers are 4 wins away from the World Series and the Cubs are cleaning out their lockers.

 

Sure, the regular season was great, but when it counted most, they let the fans down. Again.

[imb]

I don't know what the hell the accomplishment stuff is all about, but I'd consider the team approaching 100 wins much better than the 85 win team and, short of actually winning a ring, that (how good the team really was) is all that really matters to me.

 

I will look back at the 2008 Cubs much more fondly than the 03 team. That probably puts me in the minority, too.

 

Ooh, that's a tough one. I think Randall Simon pushes the 03 team ahead of 08 for me

[erik316wttn]

I don't know what the hell the accomplishment stuff is all about, but I'd consider the team approaching 100 wins much better than the 85 win team and, short of actually winning a ring, that (how good the team really was) is all that really matters to me.

 

I will look back at the 2008 Cubs much more fondly than the 03 team. That probably puts me in the minority, too.

 

This year's team and last year's team are the same for me, because the end result was still the same. Sure, this team won more games and gave us a lot more fun during the season, but they were just as bad as (and you could say even worse) than last year's team in October.

[David]

I just don't understand how people can put so much weight on the playoffs when it is clearly so much of a crapshoot. I hate to bring up an overused example, but are the 06 Cardinals a great team by virtue of winning a ring (despite a 162 game season clearly saying otherwise), or just a team that won games over a short stretch of games at the perfect time to win a championship?

 

Yes, they're fun to watch and it's fun to root for a championship (and that's what we all want), but that 162 game season says a hell of a lot more about teams than a few best of 5/7 series do.

[erik316wttn]

I just don't understand how people can put so much weight on the playoffs when it is clearly so much of a crapshoot. I hate to bring up an overused example, but are the 06 Cardinals a great team by virtue of winning a ring (despite a 162 game season clearly saying otherwise), or just a team that won games over a short stretch of games at the perfect time to win a championship?

 

Yes, they're fun to watch and it's fun to root for a championship (and that's what we all want), but that 162 game season says a hell of a lot more about teams than a few best of 5/7 series do.

 

So you lessen the Cubs loss because it's such a crapshoot.

 

If they won, would you say "Well, you really can't tell much by this NLDS victory because the playoffs are such a crapshoot?" It works both ways.

 

But once again the Cubs looked like complete crap when it counted the most. Just like they did in 69. And 84. And 89. And 2003. And 2004. And 2007. And 2008. I think that speaks volumes more than 97 wins does. This franchise is incapable of winning the big games.

 

I think crapping the bed so much throughout their history says a whole lot more than 97 wins does.

[David]

I just don't understand how people can put so much weight on the playoffs when it is clearly so much of a crapshoot. I hate to bring up an overused example, but are the 06 Cardinals a great team by virtue of winning a ring (despite a 162 game season clearly saying otherwise), or just a team that won games over a short stretch of games at the perfect time to win a championship?

 

Yes, they're fun to watch and it's fun to root for a championship (and that's what we all want), but that 162 game season says a hell of a lot more about teams than a few best of 5/7 series do.

 

So you lessen the Cubs loss because it's such a crapshoot.

 

If they won, would you say "Well, you really can't tell much by this NLDS victory because the playoffs are such a crapshoot?" It works both ways.

 

But once again the Cubs looked like complete crap when it counted the most. Just like they did in 69. And 84. And 89. And 2003. And 2004. And 2007. And 2008. I think that speaks volumes more than 97 wins does. This franchise is incapable of winning the big games.

 

I think crapping the bed so much throughout their history says a whole lot more than 97 wins does.

 

I wouldn't determine how good the team was at all based on the postseason.

 

If they had won a ring in 03, I wouldn't have suddenly changed my mind and thought that that team was a powerhouse or the best team in baseball. I would've had a hell of a lot of fun in the playoffs, but it wouldn't change my evaluation of how good the team was.

 

And for the millionth time, almost every team, outside of maybe expansion teams from the last 20 years, has had plenty of seasons that they consider choke jobs, too. The Red Sox history was epic before 2004. The Cardinals blew a 3-1 lead in 96. The Dodgers hadn't won a playoff series since Gibson. The Braves and Indians of the 90s. We aren't some special case here despite what all the media hype about 100 years makes you think.

 

Yes, the Cubs lost in ugly fashion in the playoffs. They were still a great team. The best Cubs I've ever had the pleasure of watching and I was happy to have enjoyed this season. The last 3 games don't change that. They may have left a sour taste, but they don't change it.

Edited October 7, 2008 by David

[SouthSideRyan]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but unless the Dodgers win the NL, I'd say the Cubs accomplished more this season. They don't fly flags for Divisional Series wins.

 

 

Love the examples you used to prove that the Cubs can't win when it really matters.

 

'69 and '04 couldn't win when it really mattered because the games that mattered were the ones to make the playoffs.

 

'84, '89, '07, and '08 couldn't win when it really mattered because the games that got them into the playoffs didn't matter, only the playoff games.

 

'03 couldn't win when it really mattered because the NLDS games didn't matter that year, only the NLCS.

 

And of course, the reason they couldn't get that kick through the moving goalposts?

 

Their nickname! The color scheme!! The baby bear on the jersey!!!

[Andy]

I don't know what the hell the accomplishment stuff is all about, but I'd consider the team approaching 100 wins much better than the 85 win team and, short of actually winning a ring, that (how good the team really was) is all that really matters to me.

 

I will look back at the 2008 Cubs much more fondly than the 03 team. That probably puts me in the minority, too.

The 2008 Cubs team were my favorites in the short time I've been a fan, and they still are.

[David]

I don't know what the hell the accomplishment stuff is all about, but I'd consider the team approaching 100 wins much better than the 85 win team and, short of actually winning a ring, that (how good the team really was) is all that really matters to me.

 

I will look back at the 2008 Cubs much more fondly than the 03 team. That probably puts me in the minority, too.

The 2008 Cubs team were my favorites in the short time I've been a fan, and they still are.

 

I will say that I still look at that 03 rotation (minus Estes) very fondly and that's the one aspect of that team that I'm always nostalgic about.

[Guest]

Ron Santo (Veterans Committee): Hey Joe . . . What made everyone think that the Cubs were so good? They didn't have a single guy in their line-up who is in the top five in the majors at his position, and their best two starters are brittle as paper. I know that the play-offs are a crapshoot, so their three and out is not really evidence, but I just don't see what everyone thought was so good.

 

Joe Sheehan: The 2008 Cubs look a little like the 2000-2003 Braves, teams that were really good in part because they were deep, solid from 1-25. That's the Cubs this year. In a short series, you play 1-15, and that closes the gap between them and other teams.

 

The Cubs *are* very good, and their 1-15 is very good. They had the best run differential in the league. They had no big weaknesses. Teams have three-game losing streaks, and we need to not go crazy over them.

[UMFan83]

I just don't understand how people can put so much weight on the playoffs when it is clearly so much of a crapshoot. I hate to bring up an overused example, but are the 06 Cardinals a great team by virtue of winning a ring (despite a 162 game season clearly saying otherwise), or just a team that won games over a short stretch of games at the perfect time to win a championship?

 

Yes, they're fun to watch and it's fun to root for a championship (and that's what we all want), but that 162 game season says a hell of a lot more about teams than a few best of 5/7 series do.

 

Theres crapshoot and theres winning 97 regular season games and then leading for 2 innings of an entire playoff series while scoring a grand total of 6 runs. If we even play a competitive game in this series, I would look at the team more fondly. We got pantsed by a team that we statistically dominated. If we lose 3-1 or 3-2 then yeah, oh well crapshoot. What happened shouldn't have.

[imb]

Ron Santo (Veterans Committee): Hey Joe . . . What made everyone think that the Cubs were so good? They didn't have a single guy in their line-up who is in the top five in the majors at his position, and their best two starters are brittle as paper. I know that the play-offs are a crapshoot, so their three and out is not really evidence, but I just don't see what everyone thought was so good.

 

Joe Sheehan: The 2008 Cubs look a little like the 2000-2003 Braves, teams that were really good in part because they were deep, solid from 1-25. That's the Cubs this year. In a short series, you play 1-15, and that closes the gap between them and other teams.

 

The Cubs *are* very good, and their 1-15 is very good. They had the best run differential in the league. They had no big weaknesses. Teams have three-game losing streaks, and we need to not go crazy over them.

 

Okay, I read "Hey Joe" as it being a question posed to Joe Morgan. I was literally stunned at how good his response was. Oops.

[UMFan83]

Ron Santo (Veterans Committee): Hey Joe . . . What made everyone think that the Cubs were so good? They didn't have a single guy in their line-up who is in the top five in the majors at his position, and their best two starters are brittle as paper. I know that the play-offs are a crapshoot, so their three and out is not really evidence, but I just don't see what everyone thought was so good.

 

Joe Sheehan: The 2008 Cubs look a little like the 2000-2003 Braves, teams that were really good in part because they were deep, solid from 1-25. That's the Cubs this year. In a short series, you play 1-15, and that closes the gap between them and other teams.

 

The Cubs *are* very good, and their 1-15 is very good. They had the best run differential in the league. They had no big weaknesses. Teams have three-game losing streaks, and we need to not go crazy over them.

 

I read that too. It kinda makes sense. I would take our 1-15 over anyone in the nl's though i think

[Guest]

I just don't understand how people can put so much weight on the playoffs when it is clearly so much of a crapshoot. I hate to bring up an overused example, but are the 06 Cardinals a great team by virtue of winning a ring (despite a 162 game season clearly saying otherwise), or just a team that won games over a short stretch of games at the perfect time to win a championship?

 

Yes, they're fun to watch and it's fun to root for a championship (and that's what we all want), but that 162 game season says a hell of a lot more about teams than a few best of 5/7 series do.

 

Theres crapshoot and theres winning 97 regular season games and then leading for 2 innings of an entire playoff series while scoring a grand total of 6 runs. If we even play a competitive game in this series, I would look at the team more fondly. We got pantsed by a team that we statistically dominated. If we lose 3-1 or 3-2 then yeah, oh well crapshoot. What happened shouldn't have.

 

But 100-win teams can easily get dominated in 3 games during the regular season just like the playoffs. There's crapshoot and there's 97 win teams getting dominated...which is still a crapshoot.

[Guest]

Ron Santo (Veterans Committee): Hey Joe . . . What made everyone think that the Cubs were so good? They didn't have a single guy in their line-up who is in the top five in the majors at his position, and their best two starters are brittle as paper. I know that the play-offs are a crapshoot, so their three and out is not really evidence, but I just don't see what everyone thought was so good.

 

Joe Sheehan: The 2008 Cubs look a little like the 2000-2003 Braves, teams that were really good in part because they were deep, solid from 1-25. That's the Cubs this year. In a short series, you play 1-15, and that closes the gap between them and other teams.

 

The Cubs *are* very good, and their 1-15 is very good. They had the best run differential in the league. They had no big weaknesses. Teams have three-game losing streaks, and we need to not go crazy over them.

 

Okay, I read "Hey Joe" as it being a question posed to Joe Morgan. I was literally stunned at how good his response was. Oops.

 

Awesome.

[David]

I hate that my favorite sport is so freaking random.