Fontenot to Giants

[jersey cubs fan]

Unless you're about 80 that really doesn't matter.

 

You don't have to be 80. Pitt last won in 1979, you can be in your 30's and have enjoyed that, while generations of Cubs fans have come and gone without one. It's pretty crazy to suggest only 80 year olds know the difference.

 

I'm talking about from the perspective of most of the people on this board in terms of the ages they generally fall under. I'd say with relatively few exceptions most of us fall in the 20-40 range. So let's say that in 1969 the Cubs had actually won the WS. Everything leading up to that is exactly the same as in "real life" everything since then has played out exactly the same as we've known it in "real life." Is anything really "better" in terms of being a Cubs fan born after that compared to not having won a WS in 102 years? Does anyone think that crap like Bartman still wouldn't be obsessed over if the "futility" had been for 34 years instead of 95? About the only difference I could really see is you wouldn't hear anything about the goat because, really, when you get down to it is a 40-year WS drought really any better than 102 years considering most of the fans here wouldn't have been alive? Hell, even if it had been in 1979 like the Pirates, if you were too young to know anything about it or were born after, is it really that much worse? I don't think what I'm suggesting is crazy at all. Personally, it wouldn't make a difference to me if they had won one when I was several months old if I went through the same lifetime of Cubs losing.

 

It would not even be close to what it has been. We'd barely remember Bartman's name if they won it all in '69.

 

You are talking about 2 different things though. 80 year olds and people born in 1979. A 30 year old Pirate fan may not know the difference, but a 40 year old definitely does. A 30 year old Pirates fan and a 30 year old Cubs fan may have dealt with similar frustration, but you don't have to get to 80 year olds before you see the difference.

[Sammy Sofa]

Unless you're about 80 that really doesn't matter.

 

You don't have to be 80. Pitt last won in 1979, you can be in your 30's and have enjoyed that, while generations of Cubs fans have come and gone without one. It's pretty crazy to suggest only 80 year olds know the difference.

 

I'm talking about from the perspective of most of the people on this board in terms of the ages they generally fall under. I'd say with relatively few exceptions most of us fall in the 20-40 range. So let's say that in 1969 the Cubs had actually won the WS. Everything leading up to that is exactly the same as in "real life" everything since then has played out exactly the same as we've known it in "real life." Is anything really "better" in terms of being a Cubs fan born after that compared to not having won a WS in 102 years? Does anyone think that crap like Bartman still wouldn't be obsessed over if the "futility" had been for 34 years instead of 95? About the only difference I could really see is you wouldn't hear anything about the goat because, really, when you get down to it is a 40-year WS drought really any better than 102 years considering most of the fans here wouldn't have been alive? Hell, even if it had been in 1979 like the Pirates, if you were too young to know anything about it or were born after, is it really that much worse? I don't think what I'm suggesting is crazy at all. Personally, it wouldn't make a difference to me if they had won one when I was several months old if I went through the same lifetime of Cubs losing.

 

It would not even be close to what it has been. We'd barely remember Bartman's name if they won it all in '69.

 

You are talking about 2 different things though. 80 year olds and people born in 1979. A 30 year old Pirate fan may not know the difference, but a 40 year old definitely does. A 30 year old Pirates fan and a 30 year old Cubs fan may have dealt with similar frustration, but you don't have to get to 80 year olds before you see the difference.

 

I was clearly talking about two different things. The 80-year-old comment was in regards to the idea of comparing the droughts between the Cubs and the Pirates. To me, it's meaningless since I was essentially not around for either event, so the Pirates having a shorter WS drought doesn't impact me or is "less bad" than the Cubs since in my lifetime the end result has effectively been the same. Personal opinion, that's all. Pointing out the time between when the Cubs last won and the Pirates did seems pretty redundant to me.

 

And I think you're underestimating things by saying 2003 wouldn't have been a big deal if the Cubs had won in '69. If everything else after 1969 had played out EXACTLY the same, you really don't think Cubs fans would be ridiculous over finally almost getting to another WS 33 years later and having blow up in their faces?

[Jake]

We have people in Pittsburgh who have never seen a winning season of baseball, or were two young to remember it.

 

This includes our second baseman, who was 6 last time we had a winning season.

 

Sorry, meant to add more....

 

Our fan base seems to be losing the younger set. Most of the fans I know are my age and not much younger. (i'm on the older end of things on this board, I'd say.)

 

Especially with how well the Pens & Steelers have been playing. Many have no interest in baseball.

 

This, of course, has little to do with Fontenot.

 

Except many fans still cry over the Freddy trade.

[jersey cubs fan]

And I think you're underestimating things by saying 2003 wouldn't have been a big deal if the Cubs had won in '69. If everything else after 1969 had played out EXACTLY the same, you really don't think Cubs fans would be ridiculous over finally almost getting to another WS 33 years later and having blow up in their faces?

 

Well, I did not say it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm saying it would not have been nearly as big a deal if they won in '69. 95% of that postseason's discussion was about the 97 year drought. It's simply a much bigger deal than a 33 year drought. Certainly they would talk about the Cubs as a team looking to win for the first time in a very long time. Houston, San Diego, Seattle and others have dealt with similarly long droughts but it has not come close to the discussion of the Cubs at 100. There's a difference, and it is significant.

[Sammy Sofa]

And I think you're underestimating things by saying 2003 wouldn't have been a big deal if the Cubs had won in '69. If everything else after 1969 had played out EXACTLY the same, you really don't think Cubs fans would be ridiculous over finally almost getting to another WS 33 years later and having blow up in their faces?

 

Well, I did not say it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm saying it would not have been nearly as big a deal if they won in '69. 95% of that postseason's discussion was about the 97 year drought. It's simply a much bigger deal than a 33 year drought. Certainly they would talk about the Cubs as a team looking to win for the first time in a very long time. Houston, San Diego, Seattle and others have dealt with similarly long droughts but it has not come close to the discussion of the Cubs at 100. There's a difference, and it is significant.

 

But the difference you're talking about here is with the teams involved, not the drought. I agree there's a difference in the grand scheme of things between 97 and 34 years, but at that moment in 2003 there wouldn't be, or it would be so insignificant that it wouldn't matter, unless you have convinced yourself that as things played out enough fans and players would have told themselves right then and there "ah, this sucks, but hey, at least the Cubs won it all 34 years ago!" Personally, I think once a team has gone 25 years without a championship they've crossed the threshold into "wow, it's been a long ass time since we won it all."

 

And comparing the emotions of the Cubs' fanbase to those other teams with much, much smaller fanbases and whose collective years of existence aren't much older than the Cubs WS drought doesn't really ring all that true. Those are relatively young teams with far fewer fans.

[jersey cubs fan]

And I think you're underestimating things by saying 2003 wouldn't have been a big deal if the Cubs had won in '69. If everything else after 1969 had played out EXACTLY the same, you really don't think Cubs fans would be ridiculous over finally almost getting to another WS 33 years later and having blow up in their faces?

 

Well, I did not say it wouldn't be a big deal. I'm saying it would not have been nearly as big a deal if they won in '69. 95% of that postseason's discussion was about the 97 year drought. It's simply a much bigger deal than a 33 year drought. Certainly they would talk about the Cubs as a team looking to win for the first time in a very long time. Houston, San Diego, Seattle and others have dealt with similarly long droughts but it has not come close to the discussion of the Cubs at 100. There's a difference, and it is significant.

 

But the difference you're talking about here is with the teams involved, not the drought. I agree there's a difference in the grand scheme of things between 97 and 34 years, but at that moment in 2003 there wouldn't be, or it would be so insignificant that it wouldn't matter, unless you have convinced yourself that as things played out enough fans and players would have told themselves right then and there "ah, this sucks, but hey, at least the Cubs won it all 34 years ago!" Personally, I think once a team has gone 25 years without a championship they've crossed the threshold into "wow, it's been a long ass time since we won it all."

 

And comparing the emotions of the Cubs' fanbase to those other teams with much, much smaller fanbases and whose collective years of existence aren't much older than the Cubs WS drought doesn't really ring all that true. Those are relatively young teams with far fewer fans.

 

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. 33 is either the same as 97 or it is not. What does a 30 year old care if his team has only been in existence for 40 years?

 

Had the Cubs won in 1969 the reaction in 2003 and current feelings about 2003 would be different. I don't see how anybody can think otherwise.

 

Once you are past 25 year it's been a long time, sure. But 100 is a hell of a lot longer.

[jersey cubs fan]

If your team won a world series when you were 3 months old, that is different than if your grandfather died at 85 years old and never saw them win one. It just is. We don't live our lives in a solitary bubble. We have 10 year olds that haven't seen it, 25 year olds, 40 year olds, 60 year olds, 90 year olds. None of us know a single person that has seen the Cubs win the world series. Pittsburgh won twice in the 70's. Most of them have at least a couple relatives who saw it three times.

[Sammy Sofa]

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth here. 33 is either the same as 97 or it is not. What does a 30 year old care if his team has only been in existence for 40 years?

 

I'm doing nothing of the sort. The fanbase for a team that has existed for well over a century, has always been in one of the country's biggest markets and has had decades of national exposure is obviously going to be significantly different than the fanbase of a team that's not even been around two generations are relegated primarily to a regional fanbase and coverage. It's just common sense that a fanbase as large as the Cubs' have is going to make more noise, literally and figuratively, when their team drops the ball after a hypothetical blown chance to end a 34-year-old WS drought. I can't honestly believe for a second that in my hypothetical scenario, where everything about the Cubs has played out exactly the same before and after 1969 except that they actually won the WS that year, that you think that Cubs fans wouldn't have thrown a similar fit in 2003 as compared to what actually happened? Or that you think the fanbases of the freakin' Padres, Mariners and Astros are in anyway comparable to the fanbase of the Cubs? Again, I'm not talking about reacting to a drought when comparing these fanbases: it's just stupid to compare them in the first place because they're so vastly different. If the Cubs had won 10 WS in the last 20 years the fans' reactions to blowing it in 2003 would still dwarf anything that the fanbases of those other three teams could muster if their team fucked up a chance to win a WS after a decades-long drought.

 

Had the Cubs won in 1969 the reaction in 2003 and current feelings about 2003 would be different. I don't see how anybody can think otherwise.

 

I honestly don't think it would be. Not in any kind of significant way. 34 years is a long time. You've crossed a generation at that point and, again, in my scenario everything else has played out exactly the same post-'69. That's basically 30 years of appallingly bad baseball. I'm confident people would have still flipped out in 2003. Hell, let's say you still had the cat showing up in 1969. Then you just have a new bull [expletive] story about how the Cubs are cursed to never again win another one because of that. Christ, barely anything would be different. People would just be talking up the cat and we'd still be hearing about or seeing Bartman nearly every time they play a nationally broadcast game.

[Sammy Sofa]

If your team won a world series when you were 3 months old, that is different than if your grandfather died at 85 years old and never saw them win one. It just is.

 

Yes, I know. But someone dying without having seen a WS is moot in terms of my personal experience. That's my point. To me my team not having won it all in 102 years or 35 years is redundant because either way it occurred outside of my lifetime. If they had won it a year before I was born and grandpa got to bask in it, hey, great, good for him; I still haven't been witness to one. From my perspective it's meaningless since the end result is still me without having seen my team win it all. Someone saying "haw-haw, your team hasn't won in 35 years" is the same to me as "haw-haw, your team hasn't won in 102 years." It's just personal perspective. I wouldn't "feel" better about the lifetime of Cubs' crappy baseball that I'VE witnessed if they had won a WS in 1969 or even just a year before I was born.

[jersey cubs fan]

I honestly don't think it would be. Not in any kind of significant way. 34 years is a long time. You've crossed a generation at that point and, again, in my scenario everything else has played out exactly the same post-'69. That's basically 30 years of appallingly bad baseball. I'm confident people would have still flipped out in 2003. Hell, let's say you still had the cat showing up in 1969. Then you just have a new bull [expletive] story about how the Cubs are cursed to never again win another one because of that. Christ, barely anything would be different. People would just be talking up the cat and we'd still be hearing about or seeing Bartman nearly every time they play a nationally broadcast game.

 

You're nuts.

 

If a cat showed up and they won anyway people would be freaking out?'

 

You're nuts.

[jersey cubs fan]

If your team won a world series when you were 3 months old, that is different than if your grandfather died at 85 years old and never saw them win one. It just is.

 

Yes, I know. But someone dying without having seen a WS is moot in terms of my personal experience. That's my point. To me my team not having won it all in 102 years or 35 years is redundant because either way it occurred outside of my lifetime. If they had won it a year before I was born and grandpa got to bask in it, hey, great, good for him; I still haven't been witness to one. From my perspective it's meaningless since the end result is still me without having seen my team win it all. Someone saying "haw-haw, your team hasn't won in 35 years" is the same to me as "haw-haw, your team hasn't won in 102 years." It's just personal perspective. I wouldn't "feel" better about the lifetime of Cubs' crappy baseball that I'VE witnessed if they had won a WS in 1969 or even just a year before I was born.

 

It's not in your personal experience, but witnessing an old man go through his entire life, into old age and dying without seeing one is a lot different than knowing your older brother got to stay up late and watch the WS while you were in Mommy's belly.

[Sammy Sofa]

I honestly don't think it would be. Not in any kind of significant way. 34 years is a long time. You've crossed a generation at that point and, again, in my scenario everything else has played out exactly the same post-'69. That's basically 30 years of appallingly bad baseball. I'm confident people would have still flipped out in 2003. Hell, let's say you still had the cat showing up in 1969. Then you just have a new bull [expletive] story about how the Cubs are cursed to never again win another one because of that. Christ, barely anything would be different. People would just be talking up the cat and we'd still be hearing about or seeing Bartman nearly every time they play a nationally broadcast game.

 

You're nuts.

 

If a cat showed up and they won anyway people would be freaking out?

 

Yes and no. I'm not saying that people would be freaking out only over the cat, just like they weren't freaking out only over the goat in reality. I'm talking about how superstition just adds fuel to the fire. The context would largely still be the same: long-suffering team and fanbase with an epic implosion just 5 outs from the WS, stupid mythology/curse to go along with it.

 

You're talking about a team that would have supposedly shrugged off one "curse" with the stupid goat if they had won in '69, but then not a single lazy sports journalist or announcer wouldn't have picked up on how one of the biggest teams in baseball history hadn't won a WS in decades after the season where they had a black cat run around the on-deck circle? Come on, we'd be hearing that crap left and right, same as the stupid goat. So little would be different in 2003 if they had won in 1969.

[Sammy Sofa]

If your team won a world series when you were 3 months old, that is different than if your grandfather died at 85 years old and never saw them win one. It just is.

 

Yes, I know. But someone dying without having seen a WS is moot in terms of my personal experience. That's my point. To me my team not having won it all in 102 years or 35 years is redundant because either way it occurred outside of my lifetime. If they had won it a year before I was born and grandpa got to bask in it, hey, great, good for him; I still haven't been witness to one. From my perspective it's meaningless since the end result is still me without having seen my team win it all. Someone saying "haw-haw, your team hasn't won in 35 years" is the same to me as "haw-haw, your team hasn't won in 102 years." It's just personal perspective. I wouldn't "feel" better about the lifetime of Cubs' crappy baseball that I'VE witnessed if they had won a WS in 1969 or even just a year before I was born.

 

It's not in your personal experience, but witnessing an old man go through his entire life, into old age and dying without seeing one is a lot different than knowing your older brother got to stay up late and watch the WS while you were in Mommy's belly.

 

Wow, great job describing the exceedingly rare experience of a Cubs fan having a Cubs fan grandfather who died without ever seeing them win a WS. Man, yeah, it must be impossible for me to know what that's like and also have the opinion I'm posting about.

 

You're completely and willfully missing the point.

[lumafia]

I honestly don't think it would be. Not in any kind of significant way. 34 years is a long time. You've crossed a generation at that point and, again, in my scenario everything else has played out exactly the same post-'69. That's basically 30 years of appallingly bad baseball. I'm confident people would have still flipped out in 2003. Hell, let's say you still had the cat showing up in 1969. Then you just have a new bull [expletive] story about how the Cubs are cursed to never again win another one because of that. Christ, barely anything would be different. People would just be talking up the cat and we'd still be hearing about or seeing Bartman nearly every time they play a nationally broadcast game.

 

You're nuts.

 

If a cat showed up and they won anyway people would be freaking out?

 

Yes and no. I'm not saying that people would be freaking out only over the cat, just like they weren't freaking out only over the goat in reality. I'm talking about how superstition just adds fuel to the fire. The context would largely still be the same: long-suffering team and fanbase with an epic implosion just 5 outs from the WS, stupid mythology/curse to go along with it.

 

You're talking about a team that would have supposedly shrugged off one "curse" with the stupid goat if they had won in '69, but then not a single lazy sports journalist or announcer wouldn't have picked up on how one of the biggest teams in baseball history hadn't won a WS in decades after the season where they had a black cat run around the on-deck circle? Come on, we'd be hearing that crap left and right, same as the stupid goat. So little would be different in 2003 if they had won in 1969.

 

The gap between World Series victories is what defines the Cubs, and the fans of the organization. Without that, the Cubs are just another sucky team. They wouldn't be "The Loveable Losers"....they would be "The Losers". We'd be the San Fransisco Giants, and nobody outside of the north side of Chicago would care.

[Sammy Sofa]

The gap between World Series victories is what defines the Cubs, and the fans of the organization. Without that, the Cubs are just another sucky team. They wouldn't be "The Loveable Losers"....they would be "The Losers". We'd be the San Fransisco Giants, and nobody outside of the north side of Chicago would care.

 

Nah, I disagree with that. The Cubs have the fanbase they do due to the size of the city they play in, their longevity and, most of all, WGN TV and radio.

 

Anyone who defines themselves as a Cubs fan by the team's futility is just the worst.

[MSG T]

If your team won a world series when you were 3 months old, that is different than if your grandfather died at 85 years old and never saw them win one. It just is. We don't live our lives in a solitary bubble. We have 10 year olds that haven't seen it, 25 year olds, 40 year olds, 60 year olds, 90 year olds. None of us know a single person that has seen the Cubs win the world series. Pittsburgh won twice in the 70's. Most of them have at least a couple relatives who saw it three times.

 

My grandma was a huge Cubs fan, married to a Cards fan. She died in 2007 at the age of 96. She told me numerous times about what is was like to see the Cubs in the WS (she actually attended games in 29 and 32). However, she also said how depressing it was that she had never gotten to see a Cub WS title. That was from a, then, 90 year old woman.

 

That's WAY different than a Pirates fan that is my age, 41, who remembers the 79 Pirates. It's all about perspective, once you start thinking about the things that have happened in the intervening years.

[MSG T]

The gap between World Series victories is what defines the Cubs, and the fans of the organization. Without that, the Cubs are just another sucky team. They wouldn't be "The Loveable Losers"....they would be "The Losers". We'd be the San Fransisco Giants, and nobody outside of the north side of Chicago would care.

 

Nah, I disagree with that. The Cubs have the fanbase they do due to the size of the city they play in, their longevity and, most of all, WGN TV and radio.

 

Anyone who defines themselves as a Cubs fan by the team's futility is just the worst.

 

Agreed. My grandma, who I mentioned earlier, was a Cubs fan because of her dad. He learned baseball by watching the Cap Anson led team in Chicago. He passed that love of the Cubs on to his children. And it's gone through the generations since. The WGN TV/Radio greatly assisted that. My granparents and dad/uncles could listen to the games in NE Iowa during the 30's, I could watch during the 80's and my kids can watch now. Them being crappy have nothing to do with our love of the team.

[Rob]

The gap between World Series victories is what defines the Cubs, and the fans of the organization. Without that, the Cubs are just another sucky team. They wouldn't be "The Loveable Losers"....they would be "The Losers". We'd be the San Fransisco Giants, and nobody outside of the north side of Chicago would care.

 

Nah, I disagree with that. The Cubs have the fanbase they do due to the size of the city they play in, their longevity and, most of all, WGN TV and radio.

 

Anyone who defines themselves as a Cubs fan by the team's futility is just the worst.

 

leave erik out of this.

[jersey cubs fan]

You're talking about a team that would have supposedly shrugged off one "curse" with the stupid goat if they had won in '69, but then not a single lazy sports journalist or announcer wouldn't have picked up on how one of the biggest teams in baseball history hadn't won a WS in decades after the season where they had a black cat run around the on-deck circle? Come on, we'd be hearing that crap left and right, same as the stupid goat. So little would be different in 2003 if they had won in 1969.

 

The black cat happened during 1969 right? Your theory is that if the Cubs went on to win the World Series that year, that in the ensuing decades people would go back to something that happened before they won the WS and talk about that event being related to the fact that they haven't won another since, except for the one they won that year?

 

I truly cannot understand how you can possibly think that last sentence is true. It was the fall of Boston/Chicago possibly meeting up and neither made it. It reiterated to everybody that wanted to believe it that these two doomed franchises would never win. Had the Cubs won in 1969, that's not a story.

[Sammy Sofa]

You're talking about a team that would have supposedly shrugged off one "curse" with the stupid goat if they had won in '69, but then not a single lazy sports journalist or announcer wouldn't have picked up on how one of the biggest teams in baseball history hadn't won a WS in decades after the season where they had a black cat run around the on-deck circle? Come on, we'd be hearing that crap left and right, same as the stupid goat. So little would be different in 2003 if they had won in 1969.

 

The black cat happened during 1969 right? Your theory is that if the Cubs went on to win the World Series that year, that in the ensuing decades people would go back to something that happened before they won the WS and talk about that event being related to the fact that they haven't won another since, except for the one they won that year?

 

I truly cannot understand how you can possibly think that last sentence is true. It was the fall of Boston/Chicago possibly meeting up and neither made it. It reiterated to everybody that wanted to believe it that these two doomed franchises would never win. Had the Cubs won in 1969, that's not a story.

 

It easily could be. Obviously, neither of us knows this for sure, but I wouldn't it surprising to see it have become "a thing" after a hypothetical win in 1969 if the followup was the same 30+ years of wretched baseball that we've been blessed in reality. You've already got a team and a fanbase saddled with/embracing the goat going into 1969, and it's a sport that thrives on this kind of ridiculous mythology. You'd have an occurrence as bizarre as a black cat running around the on-deck circle and then a storied team going on more than three decades of truly horrendous baseball after the last time they had won the WS. Is it as "big" as 102 years and the baggage that comes along with that? No, but it still provides the context that you'd still see a very similar reaction to 2003 with Bartman and Alou and Gonzalez and Prior melting down. 95 years or 34 years: people would have been flipping out and going nuts in 2003.

[jersey cubs fan]

It easily could be. Obviously, neither of us knows this for sure, but I wouldn't it surprising to see it have become "a thing" after a hypothetical win in 1969 if the followup was the same 30+ years of wretched baseball that we've been blessed in reality. You've already got a team and a fanbase saddled with/embracing the goat going into 1969, and it's a sport that thrives on this kind of ridiculous mythology. You'd have an occurrence as bizarre as a black cat running around the on-deck circle and then a storied team going on more than three decades of truly horrendous baseball after the last time they had won the WS. Is it as "big" as 102 years and the baggage that comes along with that? No, but it still provides the context that you'd still see a very similar reaction to 2003 with Bartman and Alou and Gonzalez and Prior melting down. 95 years or 34 years: people would have been flipping out and going nuts in 2003.

 

People would flip out and go nuts, but it wouldn't come close to the same level. You still had the Red Sox at 88 years and the White Sox at 80-whatever. You had several franchises who had never won in their existence. The Cubs with 1907, 1908 and 1969 just wouldn't create the same reaction to disappointing losses. Philly was at 28 years of drought when they won, in a city with a hell of a lot less success in other sports, and they weren't nearly as nutty about things as Cubs fans are. The 100 year thing makes all the difference in the world. 33 and 97 are completely different. The Cubs would be nowhere near the top of every list about futility, they wouldn't even be in the discussion. Hell, Cleveland doesn't even come close to replicating the reaction to 2003, and they were much more than 33 years.

[lumafia]

The gap between World Series victories is what defines the Cubs, and the fans of the organization. Without that, the Cubs are just another sucky team. They wouldn't be "The Loveable Losers"....they would be "The Losers". We'd be the San Fransisco Giants, and nobody outside of the north side of Chicago would care.

 

Nah, I disagree with that. The Cubs have the fanbase they do due to the size of the city they play in, their longevity and, most of all, WGN TV and radio.

 

Anyone who defines themselves as a Cubs fan by the team's futility is just the worst.

 

It's not the futility, it's the desire to end the futility. If you were right, I would have been a fan of the Braves instead of the Cubs, because the Braves are on TV almost every day in the south, and have been for decades. Where are all the White Sox fans? Based on your criteria, wouldn't they have the 3rd or 4th largest fan base? I think they fall in the 20ish range?

[jersey cubs fan]

The gap between World Series victories is what defines the Cubs, and the fans of the organization. Without that, the Cubs are just another sucky team. They wouldn't be "The Loveable Losers"....they would be "The Losers". We'd be the San Fransisco Giants, and nobody outside of the north side of Chicago would care.

 

Nah, I disagree with that. The Cubs have the fanbase they do due to the size of the city they play in, their longevity and, most of all, WGN TV and radio.

 

Anyone who defines themselves as a Cubs fan by the team's futility is just the worst.

 

It's not the futility, it's the desire to end the futility. If you were right, I would have been a fan of the Braves instead of the Cubs, because the Braves are on TV almost every day in the south, and have been for decades. Where are all the White Sox fans? Based on your criteria, wouldn't they have the 3rd or 4th largest fan base? I think they fall in the 20ish range?

 

The White Sox never had the TV/Radio/Marketing department that the Cubs had.

[SouthSideRyan]

The gap between World Series victories is what defines the Cubs, and the fans of the organization. Without that, the Cubs are just another sucky team. They wouldn't be "The Loveable Losers"....they would be "The Losers". We'd be the San Fransisco Giants, and nobody outside of the north side of Chicago would care.

 

Nah, I disagree with that. The Cubs have the fanbase they do due to the size of the city they play in, their longevity and, most of all, WGN TV and radio.

 

Anyone who defines themselves as a Cubs fan by the team's futility is just the worst.

 

It's not the futility, it's the desire to end the futility. If you were right, I would have been a fan of the Braves instead of the Cubs, because the Braves are on TV almost every day in the south, and have been for decades. Where are all the White Sox fans? Based on your criteria, wouldn't they have the 3rd or 4th largest fan base? I think they fall in the 20ish range?

 

The White Sox prove your point. They went to sportsvision, WGN went national. People picked up the Cubs, nobody gave a [expletive] about the White Sox

[Sammy Sofa]

It easily could be. Obviously, neither of us knows this for sure, but I wouldn't it surprising to see it have become "a thing" after a hypothetical win in 1969 if the followup was the same 30+ years of wretched baseball that we've been blessed in reality. You've already got a team and a fanbase saddled with/embracing the goat going into 1969, and it's a sport that thrives on this kind of ridiculous mythology. You'd have an occurrence as bizarre as a black cat running around the on-deck circle and then a storied team going on more than three decades of truly horrendous baseball after the last time they had won the WS. Is it as "big" as 102 years and the baggage that comes along with that? No, but it still provides the context that you'd still see a very similar reaction to 2003 with Bartman and Alou and Gonzalez and Prior melting down. 95 years or 34 years: people would have been flipping out and going nuts in 2003.

 

People would flip out and go nuts, but it wouldn't come close to the same level. You still had the Red Sox at 88 years and the White Sox at 80-whatever. You had several franchises who had never won in their existence. The Cubs with 1907, 1908 and 1969 just wouldn't create the same reaction to disappointing losses. Philly was at 28 years of drought when they won, in a city with a hell of a lot less success in other sports, and they weren't nearly as nutty about things as Cubs fans are. The 100 year thing makes all the difference in the world. 33 and 97 are completely different. The Cubs would be nowhere near the top of every list about futility, they wouldn't even be in the discussion. Hell, Cleveland doesn't even come close to replicating the reaction to 2003, and they were much more than 33 years.

 

If the perception is that a fan caused a team with a fanbase and a market like the Cubs to fail to snap a decades-long WS drought then the reaction would be bonkers at least similar to what we saw in 2003.