Re: Rizzo Nickname

[Hairyducked Idiot]

2003 was worse. Because of the 1908 thing, 1984 wasn't exactly just happy to be there, but it was the first Cubs playoff action in 39 years. 2003 had all the weight and ramifications that 1984 did, on top of the hope that it could make up for 1984. Plus, 2003 was a better team and had a better position than 1984 did, given who was starting the final two games.

 

The amount of negative variance the Cubs have experienced is just truly, truly staggering when you stop and think about it. From 1909 to 1983, they were an awful franchise, but they also lost seven consecutive playoff series.

 

Stuff like 1969 and 2004 happen to all franchises once in awhile. But the Cubs playoff performance?

 

Since 1909:

1-13 in playoff series

 

Since leading 2-0 in the 1984 NLCS:

8-23 in playoff games

0-6 in pennant-clinching games

 

Since leading 3-2 in 2003 NLCS

8 consecutive playoff losses, all by at least two runs, for a total run differential of -33.

 

There's just no good reason why teams good enough to make the playoffs should have a collective pants-pooping like that. The Cubs were already the worst franchise, but in the last three decades they've become the unluckiest as well.

[Sosa21MVP]

2008 bothered me more than 2003 because the 2008 team was legitimately the best team in the NL that year...er until October I guess. Winning 97 games, the Z no hitter, the way the offense had been clicking...yeah. I got over the 2003 NLCS about 2-3 days after Game 7 ended.

[Sammy Sofa]

2003 wrecked me for a couple of days, but 2004 is the one that really put me in an extended foul mood for a while.

[XZero771679666304]

2008 bothered me more than 2003 because the 2008 team was legitimately the best team in the NL that year...er until October I guess. Winning 97 games, the Z no hitter, the way the offense had been clicking...yeah. I got over the 2003 NLCS about 2-3 days after Game 7 ended.

 

2003 was worse for me because the playoffs are a crapshoot and we were never really in the 2008 series. In 2003 a WS appearance was in hand and it slipped out between the fingers at the last second. After game 4 it seemed like it was over and the series berth a formality.

 

Over the course of the 2008 season my expectations were very high (because the team was much better), but the end lacked the lightning quick reversal of fortune brutality that I felt in 2003.

[Sammy Sofa]

2008 bothered me more than 2003 because the 2008 team was legitimately the best team in the NL that year...er until October I guess. Winning 97 games, the Z no hitter, the way the offense had been clicking...yeah. I got over the 2003 NLCS about 2-3 days after Game 7 ended.

 

2003 was worse for me because the playoffs are a crapshoot and we were never really in the 2008 series. In 2003 a WS appearance was in hand and it slipped out between the fingers at the last second. After game 4 it seemed like it was over and the series berth a formality.

 

Over the course of the 2008 season my expectations were very high (because the team was much better), but the end lacked the lightning quick reversal of fortune brutality that I felt in 2003.

 

Yeah, first round playoff losses are just so anti-climactic for me. I was pissed when they lost game 1 in 2008, but because of what happened the year before and because teams who lose the first game of the first round tend to get bounced I moved to the acceptance part much quicker. I guess it was like when Rose went down in the playoffs this season; everything afterwards was likely just a formality, so it was easier to accept.

[bukie]

For me, 1984 was like 2003 would have been had the Cubs been up 3-0, except instead of Prior and Wood coming back to close the series, they had one pitcher in Sutcliffe that was better than both.

[Old Style]

I feel bad for all you who had to go through '84 and '03. '03 was bad enough.

 

 

Just curious since I was born in '84 so I don't know how bad that was. Was it as bad as '03? I was in college and I remember after the whole Bartman/A Gonz fiasco, my dorm basically turned into a riot. Kids were throwing stuff out the window or into the hallway and I'm pretty sure I've never heard so much cussing as I did that night.

 

For those who lived through both, which was worse? '84 or 2003?

I was 9, in 84, so I got over that pretty easy. 2003 was awful. That gets my vote, but you probably need to gauge a rabid Cubs fan in his 50's to get a better feel on the differences between the two.

I was 11 in '84 and I was crushed, but 2003 was even harder on me. My dad was rushed to the hospital right before game 7 and he wouldn't let me go with because he didn't want me to miss the game. Plus he wanted me to text updates to my sister who went with my mom to the hospital, so I sat by myself watching the game not knowing how my dad was doing which made that loss even worse. He just turned 81 recently and I'll have to ask him his opinion on this, but I'd guess that he'd say 1969 was the hardest for him to take.

[Derwood]

2004 was inexcusable. That lineup was sick (didn't Sosa hit 6th?) and the pitching was all there

[XZero771679666304]

2004 was inexcusable. That lineup was sick (didn't Sosa hit 6th?) and the pitching was all there

 

The injuries mortally wounded that season, and Dusty did his best to compound them with bad decisions (I lay the Hawkins-as-closer fiasco almost solely at Dusty's feet). Easily the best roster of any Cubs team in my lifetime, but it never really got off the ground like it should have.

[Fred Hornkohl]

From 1909 to 1983, they were an awful franchise

 

Kyle..... you are really overstating the case the here.

 

5800 wins vs 5802 losses over 75 years just screams average. That's better than 14 other teams, and worse than 10.

 

          1909 thru 1983                            World Series
team                        W       L     pct    PA     W     L

New York Yankees         6673    4900   0.577    34    22    11
San Francisco Giants     6281    5303   0.542    15     4    10
Los Angeles Dodgers      6186    5408   0.534    18     5    12
St. Louis Cardinals      6121    5463   0.528    14     9     4
Kansas City Royals       1226    1126   0.521     5     0     1
Detroit Tigers           6028    5584   0.519     7     3     3
Pittsburgh Pirates       5975    5599   0.516    10     5     1
Cleveland Indians        5938    5646   0.513     3     2     1
Boston Red Sox           5881    5690   0.508     7     4     3
Cincinnati Reds          5887    5726   0.507    11     4     4
Chicago Cubs             5800    5802   0.500     7     0     7
Chicago White Sox        5746    5817   0.497     4     1     2
Minnesota Twins          5634    5947   0.486     6     1     3
Baltimore Orioles        5532    6033   0.478     9     3     4
Anaheim Angels           1745    1916   0.477     2     0     0
Houston Astros           1661    1840   0.474     2     0     0
Atlanta Braves           5471    6094   0.473     6     2     2
Washington Nationals     1118    1248   0.473     1     0     0
Oakland A's              5365    6205   0.464    13     8     2
Philadelphia Phillies    5204    6333   0.451     8     1     3
Texas Rangers            1628    2020   0.446     0     0     0
New York Mets            1498    1997   0.429     2     1     1
San Diego Padres          995    1372   0.420     0     0     0
Toronto Blue Jays         437     639   0.406     0     0     0
Seattle Mariners          426     653   0.395     0     0     0

[apete6]

From 1909 to 1983, they were an awful franchise

 

Kyle..... you are really overstating the case the here.

 

5800 wins vs 5802 losses over 75 years just screams average. That's better than 14 other teams, and worse than 10.

 

          1909 thru 1983                            World Series
team                        W       L     pct    PA     W     L

New York Yankees         6673    4900   0.577    34    22    11
San Francisco Giants     6281    5303   0.542    15     4    10
Los Angeles Dodgers      6186    5408   0.534    18     5    12
St. Louis Cardinals      6121    5463   0.528    14     9     4
Kansas City Royals       1226    1126   0.521     5     0     1
Detroit Tigers           6028    5584   0.519     7     3     3
Pittsburgh Pirates       5975    5599   0.516    10     5     1
Cleveland Indians        5938    5646   0.513     3     2     1
Boston Red Sox           5881    5690   0.508     7     4     3
Cincinnati Reds          5887    5726   0.507    11     4     4
Chicago Cubs             5800    5802   0.500     7     0     7
Chicago White Sox        5746    5817   0.497     4     1     2
Minnesota Twins          5634    5947   0.486     6     1     3
Baltimore Orioles        5532    6033   0.478     9     3     4
Anaheim Angels           1745    1916   0.477     2     0     0
Houston Astros           1661    1840   0.474     2     0     0
Atlanta Braves           5471    6094   0.473     6     2     2
Washington Nationals     1118    1248   0.473     1     0     0
Oakland A's              5365    6205   0.464    13     8     2
Philadelphia Phillies    5204    6333   0.451     8     1     3
Texas Rangers            1628    2020   0.446     0     0     0
New York Mets            1498    1997   0.429     2     1     1
San Diego Padres          995    1372   0.420     0     0     0
Toronto Blue Jays         437     639   0.406     0     0     0
Seattle Mariners          426     653   0.395     0     0     0

 

How about the A's? When they sucked, they sucked, but when they were good, they racked up the titles. So strange.

[jersey cubs fan]

the cubs were in a perpetual cycle of mediocrity highlighted by occasional flashes of decentness.

[Sammy Sofa]

I'm just amused that Kyle says they sucked starting in 1909 when literally the very next year they went to the World Series (and again in '18, '29, '32, '35, '38 and '45).

 

Between '09 and '45 they were mostly a mediocre team, except for most of the 30's. That said, I view the true futility as not starting until after 1945.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I'm just amused that Kyle says they sucked starting in 1909 when literally the very next year they went to the World Series (and again in '18, '29, '32, '35, '38 and '45).

 

Between '09 and '45 they were mostly a mediocre team, except for most of the 30's. That said, I view the true futility as not starting until after 1945.

 

 

You're absolutely right. I lazily oversimplified (I'm as shocked as you are).

 

They were solid but unlucky from 1909-1930ish, mediocre in the 1940s, awful in the 1950s, good but not good enough in the 1960s, etc.

[Cubbie Swagger]

I think "Rizzo" is enough

This.

[El Duderino]

So after 100 PA, Rizzo has only 4 walks and only 12 K. Didn't see that coming.

[Pushfrog98]

So what do we call a Rizzo walk-off HR?

[minnesotacubsfan]

[expletive] glorious

[Guest]

paul maholm ‏@paul_maholm

What a great series win today vs the cards. The rizz kid with a walk off. All around team win.

[17 Seconds]

best walkoff since ramirez in 07

[pitchcs]

paul maholm ‏@paul_maholm

What a great series win today vs the cards. The rizz kid with a walk off. All around team win.

 

 

Not good enough. It uses his name.

 

Unacceptable. Next.

[Guest]

Rizzo has played at something like a 5-6 fWAR pace. Pretty [expletive] awesome.

[Sammy Sofa]

As already stated, the whole nickname thing is pretty redundant when your last name IS a nickname.

[davell]

If there is such a thing as "face of the franchise", is it Rizzo or Castro in 5 years?

[17 Seconds]

we all know who it would be