Cubs facilities a reason we haven't won in over 100 years...

[bhogg]

the Cubs haven't won because they are a poorly ran baseball organization that failed miserably at developing its own talent for the better part of half a century.

[17 Seconds]

I don't know about any of that, but as a fan I don't really like all the day games.

[Sammy Sofa]

He has valid points.

 

Really? Wrigley Field is the reason we haven't won since 1908? I find that extremely hard to believe.

 

Good, because that's not what I'm talking about. I agree with him that Wrigley's facilities for the players, home and away, are crap, and I agree that the Cubs have a shitty schedule due to them playing too many day games. Am I saying that those are THE reasons they haven't won a WS in over a century? Of course not, but I think they are valid criticisms, and I think that they are factors, however relatively small, that have contributed to this being a crappy organization over the years. There are much, much, much bigger issues and problems that have sidetracked the Cubs, but that doesn't mean what Rolen brings up aren't also problems in and of themselves.

[Pushfrog98]

He has valid points.

 

Really? Wrigley Field is the reason we haven't won since 1908? I find that extremely hard to believe.

 

Good, because that's not what I'm talking about. I agree with him that Wrigley's facilities for the players, home and away, are crap, and I agree that the Cubs have a [expletive] schedule due to them playing too many day games. Am I saying that those are THE reasons they haven't won a WS in over a century? Of course not, but I think they are valid criticisms, and I think that they are factors, however relatively small, that have contributed to this being a crappy organization over the years. There are much, much, much bigger issues and problems that have sidetracked the Cubs, but that doesn't mean what Rolen brings up aren't also problems in and of themselves.

I agree.

the Cubs haven't won because they are a poorly ran baseball organization that failed miserably at developing its own talent for the better part of half a century.

I agree with this as well... but I would say that an organization that is properly run would take care of the facilities and improve them as time goes on. The fact that Wrigley didn't get lights until 1988 is just ridiculous.

[Wolfgangbucks]

Yep, who wants to come to Chicago and play in front of 30.000 to 40,000 fans everyday in an antiquated stadium? That's why the Pirates are killing us this year........ they have beautiful facilities and they don't have all those pesky fans disturbing them during the game. Not to mention the day games........ all that time at home with your family at night.... that'll hurt anyones game.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I wonder how many playoff series the Cubs have to lose before even the statheads wonder if there's some sort of underlying factor at work?

[jersey cubs fan]

I wonder how many playoff series the Cubs have to lose before even the statheads wonder if there's some sort of underlying factor at work?

 

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Four series lost in a decade is supposed to have underlying factors involved? The Yankees lost more playoff series than the Cubs. Minnesota, the ultimate in supposed home field advantage, was 1-5 in playoff series this past decade.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I wonder how many playoff series the Cubs have to lose before even the statheads wonder if there's some sort of underlying factor at work?

 

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Four series lost in a decade is supposed to have underlying factors involved? The Yankees lost more playoff series than the Cubs. Minnesota, the ultimate in supposed home field advantage, was 1-5 in playoff series this past decade.

 

The Cubs are 1-12 in these supposed coinflips. I'm asking if there is any theoretical point when there might be some explanation considered other than randomness? 1-20? 1-50? 1-100?

[jersey cubs fan]

I wonder how many playoff series the Cubs have to lose before even the statheads wonder if there's some sort of underlying factor at work?

 

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Four series lost in a decade is supposed to have underlying factors involved? The Yankees lost more playoff series than the Cubs. Minnesota, the ultimate in supposed home field advantage, was 1-5 in playoff series this past decade.

 

The Cubs are 1-12 in these supposed coinflips. I'm asking if there is any theoretical point when there might be some explanation considered other than randomness? 1-20? 1-50? 1-100?

 

I'm sorry. Are you suggesting that the supposed facilities disadvantage somehow allows them to win the "marathon", sometimes easily, but then leaves them susceptible to losing in the playoffs, when it's cold out? The whole crapshoot coinflip theory is overblown. A lot of the times, the Cubs just weren't that good, like 1998 and 2007. The 2003 team wasn't even that good yet they won a series.

[SouthSideRyan]

I wonder how many playoff series the Cubs have to lose before even the statheads wonder if there's some sort of underlying factor at work?

 

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Four series lost in a decade is supposed to have underlying factors involved? The Yankees lost more playoff series than the Cubs. Minnesota, the ultimate in supposed home field advantage, was 1-5 in playoff series this past decade.

 

The Cubs are 1-12 in these supposed coinflips. I'm asking if there is any theoretical point when there might be some explanation considered other than randomness? 1-20? 1-50? 1-100?

 

So the Cubs lost in the early 1900s playoffs because their facilities weren't good enough??

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I wonder how many playoff series the Cubs have to lose before even the statheads wonder if there's some sort of underlying factor at work?

 

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Four series lost in a decade is supposed to have underlying factors involved? The Yankees lost more playoff series than the Cubs. Minnesota, the ultimate in supposed home field advantage, was 1-5 in playoff series this past decade.

 

The Cubs are 1-12 in these supposed coinflips. I'm asking if there is any theoretical point when there might be some explanation considered other than randomness? 1-20? 1-50? 1-100?

 

So the Cubs lost in the early 1900s playoffs because their facilities weren't good enough??

 

I didn't say anything about the facilities. In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't implying anything, I want this question to stand entirely on its own.

 

Is there any level of playoff ineptitude, across a time long enough that the players are all different, that would cause statheads to wonder if there was something intrinsic about the organization that could be an explanation?

[jersey cubs fan]

I didn't say anything about the facilities. In case it wasn't clear, I wasn't implying anything, I want this question to stand entirely on its own.

 

Is there any level of playoff ineptitude, across a time long enough that the players are all different, that would cause statheads to wonder if there was something intrinsic about the organization that could be an explanation?

 

You put this question into a thread about the supposed facilities disadvantage and it's assumed you are trying to blame it on the facilities.

 

On it's own, they'd have to make the playoffs far more frequently and lose in the first round everytime before I'd put any thought into it. They aren't any less "lucky" than other teams have been. They went 1-1 in 2003, then lost three in a row. They just lost about a dozen series in a row. I'm not sure why their playoff failure should be viewed as some sort of weird phenomenon.

[Guest]

I wonder how many playoff series the Cubs have to lose before even the statheads wonder if there's some sort of underlying factor at work?

 

I don't even know what this is supposed to mean. Four series lost in a decade is supposed to have underlying factors involved? The Yankees lost more playoff series than the Cubs. Minnesota, the ultimate in supposed home field advantage, was 1-5 in playoff series this past decade.

 

The Cubs are 1-12 in these supposed coinflips. I'm asking if there is any theoretical point when there might be some explanation considered other than randomness? 1-20? 1-50? 1-100?

It's just bad luck. They always have a 50/50 chance on a coin flip, so the idea that they are 1-12 has nothing to do with the anything. It's just a meaningless number. Their odds of winning a coin flip don't go up, ever. In other words your analogy doesn't work.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

It's just bad luck. They always have a 50/50 chance on a coin flip, so the idea that they are 1-12 has nothing to do with the anything. It's just a meaningless number. Their odds of winning a coin flip don't go up, ever. In other words your analogy doesn't work.

 

I didn't make any analogy.

 

I really don't understand why this is so hard. It's a yes or no question, and yet not one person will give a yes or a no.

 

Is there any level of playoff ineptitude from the same organization but spread amongst multiple sets of players that would make a stathead wonder if something intrinsic to the organization were having an effect? Yes. Or No?

[Sammy Sofa]

What?

[Hairyducked Idiot]

What?

 

I think it was a pretty simple question.

[jersey cubs fan]

It's just bad luck. They always have a 50/50 chance on a coin flip, so the idea that they are 1-12 has nothing to do with the anything. It's just a meaningless number. Their odds of winning a coin flip don't go up, ever. In other words your analogy doesn't work.

 

I didn't make any analogy.

 

I really don't understand why this is so hard. It's a yes or no question, and yet not one person will give a yes or a no.

 

Is there any level of playoff ineptitude from the same organization but spread amongst multiple sets of players that would make a stathead wonder if something intrinsic to the organization were having an effect? Yes. Or No?

 

You aren't very good at asking questions, but I gave my answer. They just won a series a few years ago. They aren't 0-20. They've been in the postseason twice since then and lost both. There are more teams that lose in the playoffs than win the WS. The 1945 loss has nothing to do with the 2007 loss.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

 

You aren't very good at asking questions, but I gave my answer. They just won a series a few years ago. They aren't 0-20. They've been in the postseason twice since then and lost both. There are more teams that lose in the playoffs than win the WS. The 1945 loss has nothing to do with the 2007 loss.

 

I asked if there was *any* level, not if the Cubs' level was enough.

[Sammy Sofa]

But what do you mean by "level?" That could mean any number of factors. This is a terrible, terribly vague question.

[jersey cubs fan]

 

You aren't very good at asking questions, but I gave my answer. They just won a series a few years ago. They aren't 0-20. They've been in the postseason twice since then and lost both. There are more teams that lose in the playoffs than win the WS. The 1945 loss has nothing to do with the 2007 loss.

 

I asked if there was *any* level, not if the Cubs' level was enough.

 

And I already said maybe if they make the playoffs frequently and lose in the first round every time I may eventually think otherwise. But they are 4-15 in postseason series as an organization. They are 8-19 in series this year. What does that mean? Nothing.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

And I already said maybe if they make the playoffs frequently and lose in the first round every time I may eventually think otherwise.

 

Okay. That's the answer I was looking for. Either "No, they could lose 100 playoff series in a row and it's still just the luck of the playoffs" or "Yes, if one team lost enough playoff series, it might be something about that team."

[Sammy Sofa]

But that's not even a question that needed to be asked in the first place. Who is thinking otherwise? It doesn't make any sense.

[treebird]

But that's not even a question that needed to be asked in the first place. Who is thinking otherwise? It doesn't make any sense.

 

it was those damn statheads again. kyle had to play devil's advocate in order to set them straight. he's not afraid to take a contrarian's position, you see.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

But that's not even a question that needed to be asked in the first place. Who is thinking otherwise? It doesn't make any sense.

 

it was those damn statheads again. kyle had to play devil's advocate in order to set them straight. he's not afraid to take a contrarian's position, you see.

 

I haven't taken any position. I was just asking a question.

 

I guess I might as well take a position: No, the Cubs' facilities have had nothing to do with how they've performed in the postseason.

[Sammy Sofa]

I guess I might as well take a position: No, the Cubs' facilities have had nothing to do with how they've performed in the postseason.

 

OK? Who was taking the counter position to that in the first place? The point of this was never specifically "the Cubs lose in the playoffs because of their facilities."