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

[chasinf5s]

i had a argument with Fred awhile back about how daytime temps would affect players overall. My basis was since they start the majority of their games at 120, they would tire out a lot easier because that time of day (between 1-4) are the hottest parts of the day. Most of the other teams play night games and its gradually getting cooler and they dont have to deal with the sun beating down on them for the entire game. The human body starts to struggle to cool itself off at around 80 degrees, this is true for well conditioned athletes as well,

 

Also the dump on Clark and Addison is not a great spot to build a team. You have to build the cubs with 30-40 games with the wind blowing in, 20-25 with the wind blowing sideways and the rest blowing out. if the Cubs played in Schaumburg or anywhere like that, i think they would have won it all a few times since. 1969 especially comes to mind because all they players now say they got tired in August.

[SouthSideRyan]

I don't think playing in Schaumburg helps the Cubs make up 9 games in the standings.

[Jon]

I don't think playing in Schaumburg helps the Cubs make up 9 games in the standings.

I, for one, would love to go to a weekend game in Schaumburg when it's 15-20 degrees hotter than it is in Wrigleyville.

[Lefty]

He has valid points.

 

Really? Wrigley Field is the reason we haven't won since 1908? I find that extremely hard to believe. Even in 1984 when they had to move the last 3 games of the NLCS to San Diego because NBC wanted night games and Wrigley didn't have lights yet, the Cubs still should have won at least one of those games.

 

J.R. makes a lot of good points about the faculties and the start times. The whole "day games and Wrigley Field is supposedly crappy" argument just seem like excuses. The real reason is because of some of the crappy teams that have been put together and the mind-bogglingly boneheaded decisions made by Cubs management over the decades, not because we play some games at 120.

 

You are incorrect. The 1984 NLCS was always 2 in the East, 3 in the West. Had the Cubs won, the World Series schedule would have been altered so the 3 weekend games would be day games at Wrigley. Alas, it was irrelevant.

[lumafia]

i had a argument with Fred awhile back about how daytime temps would affect players overall. My basis was since they start the majority of their games at 120, they would tire out a lot easier because that time of day (between 1-4) are the hottest parts of the day. Most of the other teams play night games and its gradually getting cooler and they dont have to deal with the sun beating down on them for the entire game. The human body starts to struggle to cool itself off at around 80 degrees, this is true for well conditioned athletes as well,

 

Also the dump on Clark and Addison is not a great spot to build a team. You have to build the cubs with 30-40 games with the wind blowing in, 20-25 with the wind blowing sideways and the rest blowing out. if the Cubs played in Schaumburg or anywhere like that, i think they would have won it all a few times since. 1969 especially comes to mind because all they players now say they got tired in August.

 

The only reason day games hurt the Cubs is due to attendance. If the Cubs had a larger stadium and more night games, they would have better attendance numbers.

 

No offense, but the daytime temp excuse is lame. It's not like Chicago is a tropical climate. There are only 2 months out of the year where Chicago has an average daytime high above 80 degrees. July is 83 and August is 81. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of hot days in Chicago, but they don't come close to the temperatures and humidity levels in Miami, and the Marlins have 2 championships.

[chasinf5s]

i had a argument with Fred awhile back about how daytime temps would affect players overall. My basis was since they start the majority of their games at 120, they would tire out a lot easier because that time of day (between 1-4) are the hottest parts of the day. Most of the other teams play night games and its gradually getting cooler and they dont have to deal with the sun beating down on them for the entire game. The human body starts to struggle to cool itself off at around 80 degrees, this is true for well conditioned athletes as well,

 

Also the dump on Clark and Addison is not a great spot to build a team. You have to build the cubs with 30-40 games with the wind blowing in, 20-25 with the wind blowing sideways and the rest blowing out. if the Cubs played in Schaumburg or anywhere like that, i think they would have won it all a few times since. 1969 especially comes to mind because all they players now say they got tired in August.

 

The only reason day games hurt the Cubs is due to attendance. If the Cubs had a larger stadium and more night games, they would have better attendance numbers.

 

No offense, but the daytime temp excuse is lame. It's not like Chicago is a tropical climate. There are only 2 months out of the year where Chicago has an average daytime high above 80 degrees. July is 83 and August is 81. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of hot days in Chicago, but they don't come close to the temperatures and humidity levels in Miami, and the Marlins have 2 championships.

 

If its so lame, then why do the Marlins as you posted play the majority of their home games at night? Why do the Rangers and Braves all play the majority of their games at night? Why does tampa and Houston play in domes? Youre right, Chicago is not a tropical climate, its temperate so we get all types of weather including extremely humid with high temps, like the past few weeks have shown

Edited July 9, 2010 by chasinf5s

[jersey cubs fan]

If its so lame, then why do the Marlins as you posted play the majority of their home games at night? Why do the Rangers and Braves all play the majority of their games at night? Why does tampa and Houston play in domes?

 

Money.

[lumafia]

i had a argument with Fred awhile back about how daytime temps would affect players overall. My basis was since they start the majority of their games at 120, they would tire out a lot easier because that time of day (between 1-4) are the hottest parts of the day. Most of the other teams play night games and its gradually getting cooler and they dont have to deal with the sun beating down on them for the entire game. The human body starts to struggle to cool itself off at around 80 degrees, this is true for well conditioned athletes as well,

 

Also the dump on Clark and Addison is not a great spot to build a team. You have to build the cubs with 30-40 games with the wind blowing in, 20-25 with the wind blowing sideways and the rest blowing out. if the Cubs played in Schaumburg or anywhere like that, i think they would have won it all a few times since. 1969 especially comes to mind because all they players now say they got tired in August.

 

The only reason day games hurt the Cubs is due to attendance. If the Cubs had a larger stadium and more night games, they would have better attendance numbers.

 

No offense, but the daytime temp excuse is lame. It's not like Chicago is a tropical climate. There are only 2 months out of the year where Chicago has an average daytime high above 80 degrees. July is 83 and August is 81. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of hot days in Chicago, but they don't come close to the temperatures and humidity levels in Miami, and the Marlins have 2 championships.

 

If its so lame, then why do the Marlins as you posted play the majority of their home games at night? Why do the Rangers and Braves all play the majority of their games at night? Why does tampa and Houston play in domes?

 

Because they can. They know it's more profitable to have night games as opposed to day games, and the community around them will allow them to do so.

 

If you've never stood in downtown Miami at 8 pm during August, you would know that the Chicago day game excuse is a bad one. It's 6pm there now and the heat index is 97 degrees.

Edited July 9, 2010 by lumafia

[chasinf5s]

If its so lame, then why do the Marlins as you posted play the majority of their home games at night? Why do the Rangers and Braves all play the majority of their games at night? Why does tampa and Houston play in domes?

 

Money.

 

so be it, but this club will always be at a huge disadvantage playing at Wrigley Field and its day games compared to every other team in the game.

[chasinf5s]

i had a argument with Fred awhile back about how daytime temps would affect players overall. My basis was since they start the majority of their games at 120, they would tire out a lot easier because that time of day (between 1-4) are the hottest parts of the day. Most of the other teams play night games and its gradually getting cooler and they dont have to deal with the sun beating down on them for the entire game. The human body starts to struggle to cool itself off at around 80 degrees, this is true for well conditioned athletes as well,

 

Also the dump on Clark and Addison is not a great spot to build a team. You have to build the cubs with 30-40 games with the wind blowing in, 20-25 with the wind blowing sideways and the rest blowing out. if the Cubs played in Schaumburg or anywhere like that, i think they would have won it all a few times since. 1969 especially comes to mind because all they players now say they got tired in August.

 

The only reason day games hurt the Cubs is due to attendance. If the Cubs had a larger stadium and more night games, they would have better attendance numbers.

 

No offense, but the daytime temp excuse is lame. It's not like Chicago is a tropical climate. There are only 2 months out of the year where Chicago has an average daytime high above 80 degrees. July is 83 and August is 81. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of hot days in Chicago, but they don't come close to the temperatures and humidity levels in Miami, and the Marlins have 2 championships.

 

If its so lame, then why do the Marlins as you posted play the majority of their home games at night? Why do the Rangers and Braves all play the majority of their games at night? Why does tampa and Houston play in domes?

 

Because they can.

 

and this team will continue to win nothing because they are at a huge disadvantage by playing there.

[lumafia]

i had a argument with Fred awhile back about how daytime temps would affect players overall. My basis was since they start the majority of their games at 120, they would tire out a lot easier because that time of day (between 1-4) are the hottest parts of the day. Most of the other teams play night games and its gradually getting cooler and they dont have to deal with the sun beating down on them for the entire game. The human body starts to struggle to cool itself off at around 80 degrees, this is true for well conditioned athletes as well,

 

Also the dump on Clark and Addison is not a great spot to build a team. You have to build the cubs with 30-40 games with the wind blowing in, 20-25 with the wind blowing sideways and the rest blowing out. if the Cubs played in Schaumburg or anywhere like that, i think they would have won it all a few times since. 1969 especially comes to mind because all they players now say they got tired in August.

 

The only reason day games hurt the Cubs is due to attendance. If the Cubs had a larger stadium and more night games, they would have better attendance numbers.

 

No offense, but the daytime temp excuse is lame. It's not like Chicago is a tropical climate. There are only 2 months out of the year where Chicago has an average daytime high above 80 degrees. July is 83 and August is 81. Don't get me wrong, there are plenty of hot days in Chicago, but they don't come close to the temperatures and humidity levels in Miami, and the Marlins have 2 championships.

 

If its so lame, then why do the Marlins as you posted play the majority of their home games at night? Why do the Rangers and Braves all play the majority of their games at night? Why does tampa and Houston play in domes?

 

Because they can.

 

and this team will continue to win nothing because they are at a huge disadvantage by playing there.

 

I agree that they are at a disadvantage by playing at Wrigley, but it has nothing to do with them playing more day games than other teams.

[J.R.]

and this team will continue to win nothing because they are at a huge disadvantage by playing there.

 

It's Mrs. Jim Hendry, ladies and gentlemen!

 

Who else could conjure such nonsense in defense of ridiculously inept management?

[ScrubMD]

I think there's definitely something to this. When the wear and tear of the hit hits you, it hits you very suddenly. Like, for example, the 8th inning of game 6 in the NLCS. I blame the 2003 playoffs entirely on day games. 07 and 08 too, for that matter.

[baseballfan50]

I think the facilities at Wrigley can affect performance, as can playing a lot of day games in the heat. Those things are probably part of the equation.

 

I'd hate to see Wrigley abandoned. In fact, I'm going in a few weeks. However, the Cubs will eventually need a new stadium. I'm not sure if a new stadium would affect performance or not. A new stadium has a lot of positives, but you lose some attributes of the old stadium as well. It's a trade-off.

[BigSlick]

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

As a college student with often really open schedules, I loved the day games, but now those days are over :(

[Derwood]

I think the day games are more of a factor in the teams keeping a consistent schedule. When you have a 1:20pm game, you are at the ballpark relatively early in the morning. When your games are at 7pm, you get to the ballpark in the early to mid afternoon. Most teams play 5-6 night games per week, plus a Sunday matinee, so their week-to-week "work" schedule is fairly consistent (traveling between timezones notwithstanding, as every team has to do that).

 

So basically, most teams consistently work the 2nd shift, while the Cubs are constantly switching between the 1st and 2nd shift.

[d_money]

The Cubs are on a 102 year draught...if they played in Schaumburg and won the WS - I'd be happy. Screw Wrigley, its a dump, get over it. If you're a true fan - who cares where they win it?

[TruffleShuffle]

 

The Cubs are 1-12 in these supposed coinflips.

 

you are the one who keeps (wrongly) assuming that playoff series are a coin flip.

[TruffleShuffle]

the assumption that seems to be made here is that the cubs haven't won in 100 years because their facilities have always been inferior and they've always played too many day games. for much of the time the cubs have been at wrigley, everyone played their games under the sun, so that excuse can only be used for a fraction of the 100+ year drought. i'd also guess that wrigley wasn't a dump compared to most ballparks for much of its history. fenway isn't that great for the players and the red sox have contended a lot more than the cubs have.

 

the cubs have consistently been mismanaged over the past 100 years, that's why they never win.

[J.R.]

The Cubs are on a 102 year draught...if they played in Schaumburg and won the WS - I'd be happy. Screw Wrigley, its a dump, get over it. If you're a true fan - who cares where they win it?

 

Yeah, screw the only marketable asset this club has.

[d_money]

The Cubs are on a 102 year draught...if they played in Schaumburg and won the WS - I'd be happy. Screw Wrigley, its a dump, get over it. If you're a true fan - who cares where they win it?

 

Yeah, screw the only marketable asset this club has.

 

Yeah, screw it. When it boils down, I want a WS - thats it. If it means not at Wrigley but at a venue that has all the ammenities (more night games, batting cages, etc..) plus an old school look, I'll take it. I'm not really worried about boozing after the game with the post-collegiate crowd, give me a WS.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I would definitely trade leaving Wrigley for a World Series Championship. That being said, no park I've ever been to enhances my baseball experience quite like Wrigley. There's something beautiful about being there, especially on a warm, sunny day. Even on my last trip there, the level of play was horrendous, but the experience was grand. I've been to a lot of ballparks with a lot better ameneities, and none compare.

 

So, while I'd support the Cubs playing elsewhere, I'd much rather have them win one with Wrigley part of the package.

[Fred Hornkohl]

I would definitely trade leaving Wrigley for a World Series Championship. That being said, no park I've ever been to enhances my baseball experience quite like Wrigley. There's something beautiful about being there, especially on a warm, sunny day. Even on my last trip there, the level of play was horrendous, but the experience was grand. I've been to a lot of ballparks with a lot better ameneities, and none compare.

 

So, while I'd support the Cubs playing elsewhere, I'd much rather have them win one with Wrigley part of the package.

 

It's clearly the company you keep !!

[Sammy Sofa]

the assumption that seems to be made here is that the cubs haven't won in 100 years because their facilities have always been inferior and they've always played too many day games.

 

I think only one person here is making that assumption.

[jersey cubs fan]

If its so lame, then why do the Marlins as you posted play the majority of their home games at night? Why do the Rangers and Braves all play the majority of their games at night? Why does tampa and Houston play in domes?

 

Money.

 

so be it, but this club will always be at a huge disadvantage playing at Wrigley Field and its day games compared to every other team in the game.

 

So was the 2008 team actually a 103 win club that wilted in the heat?