It's time for change.

[Derwood]

Just to summarize then:

 

83 win 2006 Cardinals team >>>>> 116 win 2001 Mariners team (re: Ring)

[Little Slide Rooter]

Remember 2004? Remember how everyone made a big deal about it because that was the first time since 1973 the Cubs had posted back to back winning seasons?

[nitpick]It was actually 1972. They had winning seasons every year from 1967 through 1972, then beginning with 1973 they didn't have another winning season until 1984 (there was one 81-81 season in that stretch). [/nitpick]

 

Were spoiled now. growing up on the Cubs teams of the 80's and 90's, I was just happy when the Cubs won 1 here and there. Hell, they didnt have to, if my favorite players had a good game, that would suffice as well. Besides '89 and the marginal '98 team, I really didnt grow up with a winning team. Then 2003 came along, and that winning thing that other teams seemed to do so often felt good. Once I got that taste in my mouth, there was no turing back, and while 2006 wasnt much worse than most of those crap teams Id accepted all those years, Id finally developed expectations, and failure wouldnt do anymore. not one bit.

[Sammys Boombox]

Remember 2004? Remember how everyone made a big deal about it because that was the first time since 1973 the Cubs had posted back to back winning seasons?

[nitpick]It was actually 1972. They had winning seasons every year from 1967 through 1972, then beginning with 1973 they didn't have another winning season until 1984 (there was one 81-81 season in that stretch). [/nitpick]

 

Were spoiled now. growing up on the Cubs teams of the 80's and 90's, I was just happy when the Cubs won 1 here and there. Hell, they didnt have to, if my favorite players had a good game, that would suffice as well. Besides '89 and the marginal '98 team, I really didnt grow up with a winning team. Then 2003 came along, and that winning thing that other teams seemed to do so often felt good. Once I got that taste in my mouth, there was no turing back, and while 2006 wasnt much worse than most of those crap teams Id accepted all those years, Id finally developed expectations, and failure wouldnt do anymore. not one bit.

 

Exactly. I became a different fan after 2003. Not in terms of how much I watched or followed, but how I followed the Cubs. Of course we pay $50 a ticket for the bleachers now so maybe we deserve a winner? No?

[cubsfan1947]

Remember 2004? Remember how everyone made a big deal about it because that was the first time since 1973 the Cubs had posted back to back winning seasons?

[nitpick]It was actually 1972. They had winning seasons every year from 1967 through 1972, then beginning with 1973 they didn't have another winning season until 1984 (there was one 81-81 season in that stretch). [/nitpick]

 

Were spoiled now. growing up on the Cubs teams of the 80's and 90's, I was just happy when the Cubs won 1 here and there. Hell, they didnt have to, if my favorite players had a good game, that would suffice as well. Besides '89 and the marginal '98 team, I really didnt grow up with a winning team. Then 2003 came along, and that winning thing that other teams seemed to do so often felt good. Once I got that taste in my mouth, there was no turing back, and while 2006 wasnt much worse than most of those crap teams Id accepted all those years, Id finally developed expectations, and failure wouldnt do anymore. not one bit.

 

Exactly. I became a different fan after 2003. Not in terms of how much I watched or followed, but how I followed the Cubs. Of course we pay $50 a ticket for the bleachers now so maybe we deserve a winner? No?

 

Wow. You guys have said exactly what I feel.

[Arnold Layne]

Now if you are a Cub fan that thinks that winning 97 games and getting swept in the playoffs is somehow a "good year", more power to you. You are the Cubs fans that keep the whole motor chugging. From the believe bracelets to the Cubs convention. Just be aware that there are Cub fans that have seen this movie before and would like something a little more than a 97 win season to be followed up by an exit from the playoffs.

 

Defending this organization doesn't make you any more or better of a Cubs fan than those of us who hold the team to a higher standard.

 

 

 

+1

[Hairyducked Idiot]

We all want more. Some of just are smart enough to know how it happens.

[manbearcub]

PWN3D

[cubswin2009]

Just to summarize then:

 

83 win 2006 Cardinals team >>>>> 116 win 2001 Mariners team (re: Ring)

I don't know about you but I'd rather be a fan of the 83 win Cardinals team. 116 wins no ring is just depressing. And hey look, Lou was the manager of that team. :shock:

[Derwood]

Just to summarize then:

 

83 win 2006 Cardinals team >>>>> 116 win 2001 Mariners team (re: Ring)

I don't know about you but I'd rather be a fan of the 83 win Cardinals team. 116 wins no ring is just depressing. And hey look, Lou was the manager of that team. :shock:

 

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask which you'd rather be a fan of.

[cubswin2009]

Just to summarize then:

 

83 win 2006 Cardinals team >>>>> 116 win 2001 Mariners team (re: Ring)

I don't know about you but I'd rather be a fan of the 83 win Cardinals team. 116 wins no ring is just depressing. And hey look, Lou was the manager of that team. :shock:

 

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask which you'd rather be a fan of.

The goal in Spring Training isn't to win the most games in the regular season and fizz out in October. It's to win a World Series. So yes 2006 Cardinals>2001 Mariners.

[A-Cal]

there sure are a lot of high horses galloping around this joint

[rocket]

Just to summarize then:

 

83 win 2006 Cardinals team >>>>> 116 win 2001 Mariners team (re: Ring)

I don't know about you but I'd rather be a fan of the 83 win Cardinals team. 116 wins no ring is just depressing. And hey look, Lou was the manager of that team. :shock:

 

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask which you'd rather be a fan of.

The goal in Spring Training isn't to win the most games in the regular season and fizz out in October. It's to win a World Series. So yes 2006 Cardinals>2001 Mariners.

 

and if you're team is only good enough to win 83 games then you're going to miss the playoffs 99% of the time.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Just to summarize then:

 

83 win 2006 Cardinals team >>>>> 116 win 2001 Mariners team (re: Ring)

I don't know about you but I'd rather be a fan of the 83 win Cardinals team. 116 wins no ring is just depressing. And hey look, Lou was the manager of that team. :shock:

 

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask which you'd rather be a fan of.

The goal in Spring Training isn't to win the most games in the regular season and fizz out in October. It's to win a World Series. So yes 2006 Cardinals>2001 Mariners.

 

During the regular season, yes, the Mariners fans probably had a lot more fun, and the Cards fans probably weant through an often frustrating roller coaster ride. Hoiwever, in the end, The 2006 Cardinals got the desired results. So yes, the Mariners fans of 2001 had a better 6 month ride than the 2006 Cardinals fan, however, the 2006 Cards fans will always have a fond memory of that team, while Id assume that the majority of Mariners fans still have a bitter taste in their mouth from the end game.

 

Id also assume that The passengers of the Titanic enjoyed a more memorable experience than those on a charter bus from Minneapolis to Chicago, however, when all is said and done, those who took said charter bus probably got home with much fonder memories of their trip than those on the Titanic.

 

In the end, the question is, would you rather have a fun time that will last you the duration of the ride itself and ultimately leave a bitter taste in your mouth, or a roller coaster ride that will leave you with much fonder memories that will leave you smiling for years to come.

Edited May 25, 2009 by Little Slide Rooter

[dew1679666265]

Just to summarize then:

 

83 win 2006 Cardinals team >>>>> 116 win 2001 Mariners team (re: Ring)

I don't know about you but I'd rather be a fan of the 83 win Cardinals team. 116 wins no ring is just depressing. And hey look, Lou was the manager of that team. :shock:

 

You didn't answer the question. I didn't ask which you'd rather be a fan of.

The goal in Spring Training isn't to win the most games in the regular season and fizz out in October. It's to win a World Series. So yes 2006 Cardinals>2001 Mariners.

 

If you had no knowledge of the results of the season and I told you that the Ms would win 116 games and the Cards would win 86, who would you think was more likely to win the World Series?

[cubswin2009]

If you had no knowledge of the results of the season and I told you that the Ms would win 116 games and the Cards would win 86, who would you think was more likely to win the World Series?

The playoffs are a crapshoot, anybody can win the World Series. The Mariners clinched in like August so they were resting their players for a month and it probably affected them in a negative way when they lost in October. Of course I'd tell you the Mariners had the better chance to win the World Series though.

[Little Slide Rooter]

If you had no knowledge of the results of the season and I told you that the Ms would win 116 games and the Cards would win 86, who would you think was more likely to win the World Series?

The playoffs are a crapshoot, anybody can win the World Series. The Mariners clinched in like August so they were resting their players for a month and it probably affected them in a negative way when they lost in October. Of course I'd tell you the Mariners had the better chance to win the World Series though.

 

Ill agree if what you're trying to say is that sometimes, that end game momentum can carry you further into the playoffs than an early clinching.

[dew1679666265]

If you had no knowledge of the results of the season and I told you that the Ms would win 116 games and the Cards would win 86, who would you think was more likely to win the World Series?

The playoffs are a crapshoot, anybody can win the World Series. The Mariners clinched in like August so they were resting their players for a month and it probably affected them in a negative way when they lost in October. Of course I'd tell you the Mariners had the better chance to win the World Series though.

 

Ok, so you agree that success in the postseason is never ensured and that your best chance in them is to build a team that is successful in the regular season. Am I right in my understanding of that part of your stance?

 

If I am, then the Cubs winning 181 games the past two regular seasons is an indicator that they are on the right track to playoff success, correct? It's just a matter of continuing to build very talented teams (like the Cubs) and getting the breaks in the postseason, right?

[RedFlash]

Just to summarize then:

 

83 win 2006 Cardinals team >>>>> 116 win 2001 Mariners team (re: Ring)

I don't know about you but I'd rather be a fan of the 83 win Cardinals team. 116 wins no ring is just depressing. And hey look, Lou was the manager of that team. :shock:

 

Not me. 9 out of 10 times an "83 win team" like the 06 Cards are more likely to miss the playoffs or eliminated in the NLDS. While the 2006 Cards and the 2001 Mariners are both flukes, I would still put money on the team who played better during the season to win the World Series over a team that back door it's way to the World Series. Since 2000 the average W/L records of the eventual World Champion has been something close to 95-67. Only two teams since 2000 had wins total under 90 and those teams were the 2000 NYY and the 2006 STL. In other words teams like the 2006 Cards had no business in the playoff, much less winning the title, which means that team was incredible fluky.

[RedVerbs]

As a Cardinal fan I can tell you

 

Winning 83 and a World series in 2006

 

Easily trumps winning 100 games in 2004, and a 105 in 2005 and getting exited out of the playoffs with nothing to show for it.

 

When you win 100 games, usually by early August, your team has won enough games you see the writing on the wall that they're winning the division, so regular season wins stop becoming fun around then. By then, it's just watching and hoping nobody gets hurt before October.

[Illini Iceman]

As a Cardinal fan I can tell you

 

Winning 83 and a World series in 2006

 

Easily trumps winning 100 games in 2004, and a 105 in 2005 and getting exited out of the playoffs with nothing to show for it.

 

When you win 100 games, usually by early August, your team has won enough games you see the writing on the wall that they're winning the division, so regular season wins stop becoming fun around then. By then, it's just watching and hoping nobody gets hurt before October.

 

I don't think you got the point of the question.

[dew1679666265]

As a Cardinal fan I can tell you

 

Winning 83 and a World series in 2006

 

Easily trumps winning 100 games in 2004, and a 105 in 2005 and getting exited out of the playoffs with nothing to show for it.

 

When you win 100 games, usually by early August, your team has won enough games you see the writing on the wall that they're winning the division, so regular season wins stop becoming fun around then. By then, it's just watching and hoping nobody gets hurt before October.

 

The discussion is concerning the most likely way to win a World Series.

 

One group is saying that putting together a team that wins 90+ games in the regular season should be the goal because it gives you the best shot in the postseason. Another group is saying there's a different route and regular season success is meaningless.

[Gingerballs Lives]

As a Cardinal fan I can tell you

 

Winning 83 and a World series in 2006

 

Easily trumps winning 100 games in 2004, and a 105 in 2005 and getting exited out of the playoffs with nothing to show for it.

 

When you win 100 games, usually by early August, your team has won enough games you see the writing on the wall that they're winning the division, so regular season wins stop becoming fun around then. By then, it's just watching and hoping nobody gets hurt before October.

 

Right, but the teams from 04 and 05 were both better than the 06 team.

[Outshined_One]

Of course winning 83 and winning the WS is preferable to winning 120 and not making it out of the first round. Hell, if there was a way to win 60 games and win the WS, that'd be preferable to winning 120 and not making it out of the first round of the playoffs.

 

However, this is more about building a team that is most likely to win a WS. Given the choice between 120 wins, 83 wins, and 60 wins, which of those teams do you think would be more likely to make it to the WS and win it?

[illiniguy]

Of course winning 83 and winning the WS is preferable to winning 120 and not making it out of the first round. Hell, if there was a way to win 60 games and win the WS, that'd be preferable to winning 120 and not making it out of the first round of the playoffs.

 

However, this is more about building a team that is most likely to win a WS. Given the choice between 120 wins, 83 wins, and 60 wins, which of those teams do you think would be more likely to make it to the WS and win it?

This is so flawed an argument everyone is having. Only the Cardinals can win 83 games and win a World Series. We aren't, nor have we ever been that kind of lucky.

[RedVerbs]

Of course winning 83 and winning the WS is preferable to winning 120 and not making it out of the first round. Hell, if there was a way to win 60 games and win the WS, that'd be preferable to winning 120 and not making it out of the first round of the playoffs.

 

However, this is more about building a team that is most likely to win a WS. Given the choice between 120 wins, 83 wins, and 60 wins, which of those teams do you think would be more likely to make it to the WS and win it?

This is so flawed an argument everyone is having. Only the Cardinals can win 83 games and win a World Series. We aren't, nor have we ever been that kind of lucky.

 

It has very little to do with luck, and much more to do with the playoffs being a crap shoot. You also don't have Carpenter or Pujols or Wainwright or Rolen.