Ricky Vaughn

While not from a major league game, I think this one tops Buehrle's: http://www.sportingnews.com/blog/the_sporting_blog/entry/view/61816/vanderbilt_pitcher_gets_nailed_by_knee-shattering_line_drive Especially when the X rays came back in.

Yeah, but "zingers" are hardly the basis of a rivalry, so that's not really relevant. And even though it was a long time ago, remember, until october 2006, the Royals could still claim A) having a more recent World Championship, and B) Having directly helped to a stretch of the Cardinals' futility. Sure, the Royals hadn't won in a while, but then, they'd still won more recently than the Cardinals. Yes, when one fan base takes over another fan base's stadium, or even gets it close to 50/50, it's likely that those fans are going to come from more than just the metropolitan area. But, again, that's not really relevant. We aren't talking about St. Louis (the city) vs. Kansas City (the city), we're talking about the team, and their fanbases. The fact is that many Cardinals fans, regardless of their geographical location, still head to Kansas City for that series. That's a reflection of how they view the rivalry. Faie enough, but I have a group of friends that have been making the trip for the past 8 years, and it's grown every year. This year, our group alone is going to be 24 people. Not that we're indicative either, and most likely the truth lies somewhere in the middle (which was my initial point), but for the poster to say that the rivalry was only about geography, is simply wrong.

I'm a Cards fan too. The supposed Cards-Royals rivalry is because they are in the same state, it doesn't mean they are rivals. The fans in KC are the ones making a big deal out of it. Kansas city, though not a traditional rival, and definitely not on par with the Cubs, is definitely not one-sided, and it's not just about the same state. There's also the World Series history, and the Royals' one shining moment was also something that had played a part in what was one of the longest stretches of no titles for the Cardinals. Obviously that changed in 2006. Add in the fact that there was one specific play that both sides could argue about (even though it didn't determine the series), and there was definitely a back and forth between the fan bases. If this was all one-sided, then you wouldn't have Cardinals fans driving across the state in droves for the series every year. The Mets are not a rival to the Cardinals. In the 80s, when they were in the same division, and were consitently two of the better teams, and often fighting it out at the end, yes, they were rivals. But, since realignment, the Cardinals and Mets have played exactly 12 meaningful games in the last 20 seasons. The Cardinals and Cubs will play 15 meaningful games this season. New York teams, in general, are easy for everyone outside of New York to hate. That doesn't make them a rival. Furthermore, though I have met a Mets fan who once told me in a midtown bar "Yadier Molina broke my heart," I have never met one who talked about the "rivalry" between the two clubs. The claim that the Mets are a bigger rival because they've met in big games is preposterous. I'm guessing you're the same type of fan who thought that the Astros had overtaken the Cubs as the Cardinals' biggest rival in 04-05, too. But that's actually missing the point. At that point, Cards fans only cared about the Astros because they were good. Likewise, in 2006, they only cared about the Mets because they were directly in the way. These, essentially, were "conditional rivalries," and conditional rivalries aren't really rivals. Once the Astros went back to sucking, the games lost the luster. Cards-Cubs games are always big, even if one team sucks, or both do. They could be fighting it out for 5th place in the division, and it'd still be huge to the fans. Anyway, as to the initial question, my guess would be that Cubs fans see the Brewers the way the Cardinals fans saw the Astros, and to some extent see the Brewers: The games are big because they're divisional, and because the other team is currently talented. To some extent, fans might get overly excited because these teams are threatening the "established" powers in the division, and because they have a newly developed, bandwagon hopping fan base. But, they aren't really a rival.

As an outsider, I have a lot less experience with Wrigley than the rest of you-I never went before 2002, and I've still only been on weekends, so my experiences have been in the "post-scene" era, and on dates that are more popular anyway. But I do have a question...is it possible that at least some of the increased attendances in the stadium have been due to the rooftops becoming "official partners," and therefore getting more expensive? In other words...watching from a rooftop used to be a cheaper, and still easy way to catch a ballgame. Then the owners started building nicer bleachers, including food and beverages, etc. which (I assume) lead them to raise their prices. Then they reached an agreement with the club, and in order to offset some of the revenue they paid to the club, they raised their own prices again. All of a sudden, the roofs are quite expensive, and although they have some pluses (somewhat private, food & drink included, clean bathrooms), they're also that much further away, and not necessarily a "bargain" compared to actually buying a seat in the stadium. So is it possible that this drove some people from the rooftops, back into the stadium? Thus, stadium attendance, based off of tickets sold, would appear higher, but the number of people who "went to" the game remained the same or close to it? Not that this would account for all of it. Just a theory, and interested in your thoughts on it.

The Cards weren't exactly blessed in this department. Two of their top three pitchers ended up spending time on the DL (in Lohse's case, multiple times) due to injuries sustained while batting. Their starting center fielder spent time on the DL after almost taking his own head off in the field. Their starting 3rd baseman didn't appear in a game until September 2nd (at which point they already had a double-digit lead), and only had 29 at-bats. They had a reigning all-star, preceived protection for Albert Pujols, spend time on the DL with a pulled hammy. Their big offseason acquisition made multiple trips to the DL, because he was crazy. The person who filled in for said acquisition also spent time on the DL with a pulled hammy. They made an in-season trade for someone they thought would boost their offense (and based on opinion here at the time, someone many felt the Cubs should get) only to see him tear a ligament in his wrist three days later. Some of those don't seem like big losses, because some of those players regressed even when they were healthy, and because other people stepped up. But, if you looked at them preseason, compared them to their 2008 team, and said that they'll lose their #2, #3, and #4 RBI men to significant time, as well as losing their wins leader for much of the season and a former Cy Young for part of it as well, you would hardly say that they caught a break on the injury front as compared to the Cubs.

exactly, I don't know if Cardinals fans don't understand it or what the deal is, but most of the Cards fans around in 1985 were around to see the 2006 title, how can that not make up for it? Maybe it's our fanbase that doesn't get it. Sorry, I think you misunderstood what I was trying to say. Yes, winning a title would/should help soothe a lot of wounds. I'm simply saying it doesn't erase what happened before. And, for the sake of this argument, Aramis Fan, it seemed to me like you were saying it did. I disagree. Like I said, if the Cubs win, the fan base will be happy. But, does that mean that people will stop talking about everything they've been through? Red Sox fans still talk about Bucky Dent, Aaron Boone, trading Ruth, etc. even though they're the only team in this decade with two World Series titles. Winning them has allowed them to become smug, while referring to the horrors of the past still allows them to play the scorned role. Of course, none of us would really know for sure. A Cubs fan can assume that the Cards would/should forget about 85, but without being in that position, they don't really know. If/when the Cubs get there, they'll know. As an Indians fan, I'll probably never know.

AramisFan, some of your counterarguments don't really hold that much water. Why? Look, Smoltz is clearly not the same guy he used to be, but he's the only guy in MLB history with 200 wins and 150 saves. The idea that he could come to a good NL team, with a good pitching coach, and have success over a two month span is not so completely incomprehensable. Not likely, but definitely not out of the question, and not a matter of luck. There's absolutely no logic to that. If the Cubs win the World Series, does that mean everyone all of a sudden forgets about all of the hardships the franchise has gone through, since "Hey, they ended up winning a World Series anyway." A horrible call in the 9th inning of a game that would have won them the World Series is pretty bad luck. Winning a World Series 21 years later doesn't really change that. All you've done here is prove his point. Bad luck has happened to both teams. Rich Hill was A) Never the pitching talent that Ankiel was, and B) Never the hitting prospect Ankiel was. When he was part of the US Amateur team, Ankiel was the only pitcher in the tournament that didn't have a DH, and on days he didn't pitch, he would either play OF, or DH himself. The fact that the guy happens to be immensely talented isn't luck. Prior's career falling off the cliff was a lot more like Mark Mulder's doing the same. Both were very good, both were supposed to be "injury proof" due to their mechanics, and both went through a period where the teams kept giving them rest, rather than identifying the problem, which only made it worse. If you look, they even hit the wall at the same point. Both were last relevant in 2005, Mulder's 1st season in St. Louis Mulder '05 16-8 3.64 ERA Prior '05 11-7 3.67 ERA That's the much more apt comparison. But the Cubs have never had to try to emotionally put the pieces together after losing a teammate in midseason.

I'm not denying that. Simply saying that they have dealt with injuries. You seem to be completely ignoring that fact. I'm not saying the Cardinals deserve sympathy for their injuries. Again, simply stating that they've had quite a few, which makes your "the Cubs have only been healthy for two days" argument a moot point. The fact that a "star" player has sucked is a completely different point. In fact, that's what I was saying when I said that this payroll should produce more depth. Funny, your argument was that the Cubs were ravaged by injuries. Now you're changing your tune to "well we've had players who have sucked." Interesting that you'd be using that argument, since it's EXACTLY what I said in my previous post. Lohse was out for over a month. He also got skipped a few times earlier in the season due to soreness. In his place, the Cardinals started Brad Thompson. When Lohse went to the DL, the Cubs were 3 games behind the Cardinals. As of now, they're 3.5 games. I don't think we can pin the Cardinals's success on Kyle Lohse performing better than you expected him to. Again, what happens in the 2nd half isn't really the issue, since we're discussing why the teams are where they are at this moment. You made the simplistic argument that it came down to one team being injured. I simply pointed out that that argument has no merit, as the other team has also suffered greatly from injuries

The injury excuse really isn't that valid. Cubs have had their lineup for two games all year? Cards haven't had it together at all so far. Troy Glaus, a .270/.372/.483 hitter last season with 27 HR and 99 RBI, hasn't played all year. Of course, he's not Aramis Ramirez, but that's pretty significant production to take out of someone's lineup. Ryan Ludwick, an all-star a year ago, missed time with a pulled hamstring. Rick Ankiel, a 25 HR guy a year ago, missed time after nearly killing himself. He's recently admitted his shoulder is still sore from the collision, which has lead in part to his poor play. Chris Carpenter, their best pitcher, a former Cy Young winner, and someone who has a lower ERA than any of the Cubs' starters, missed significant time. They also missed time from another starter when Lohse went down. They even traded for an "impact" player, someone most Cubs fans wish they still had, and he got injured right away. Their big offseason acquisition is on the DL for the second time this season with a case of the crazies. None of this is to suggest that the Cardinals' injuries have been more devastating than the Cubs'. The point is, every team has had to deal with injuries. Blaming the current situation on that is putting on blinders. The fact is, thus far, the Cardinals' scrubs have outperformed the Cubs' scrubs. But to blame injuries, when you're getting beat by a team that has featured Joe Thurston, Brian Barden, Nick Stavinoha, Tyler Greene, Shane Robinson, Brad Thompson, PJ Walters and Todd Friggen Wellemeyer, is ridiculous. Especially when you look at who the Cubs have. With the payroll where it is, they shouldn't even be playing scrubs. At $140 million, there should be some depth. St. Louis' scrubs have outperformed Chicago's thus far. Doesn't mean it will continue in the 2nd half. Doesn't mean one team, the other, or both, won't get healthy in the 2nd half. But the injury excuse wears thin in this argument.

C Molina

Perhaps they have the most wins because they have the most teams, and most opportunity to win. Don't they also have the most losses? Who cares about a battle for 1st on June 1? The central has 2 crappy teams and 4 teams basically playing .500 ball the last couple weeks. Are you serious? The relation to wins and losses does'nt change if the division had 2 teams or 100. We have the most wins because we have won more games over the East and West. And as to the .500 ball, would it matter if it was .700? I don't think so. It's simple math. More teams=more wins. And more losses. Don't believe me? Combined records, as of right now: AL East 137-123 .526 winning % "Average" record of 27.4-24.6 AL East 123-131 .484 winning % "Average" record of 24.6-26.2 AL West 98-102 .490 winning % "Average" record of 24.5-25.5 NL East 119-131 .470 winning % "Average" record of 23.8-26.2 NL Central 155-146 .515 winning % "Average" record of 25.8-24.3 NL West 128-127 .502 winning % "Average" record of 25.6-25.4 So, yeah, the NLC has the most wins....but they also have the most losses. Is that worthy of it's own thread, too? The NLC does NOT have the most wins per team, or the highest winning percentage, which are the better indicators.