The Cubs' culture of losing goes on
by CardsWin on Oct 6, 2008 2:56 PM EDT
48 comments
I remember seeing an analysis a year or two ago that showed that World Series teams usually have three things in common: strong starting pitching, an excellent closer, and excellent defense. Offense is less important than any of those three factors.
Based on those four factors, the Cubs looked like the team to beat this year in the NL. And going into the playoffs, they still looked like the team to beat. Jayson Stark, among others, picked them to finally go the World Series. The Cubs had three excellent starting pitchers, a very good closer, and excellent defense.
So how did the team rated the best in the NL get swept by a team with a .519 winning percentage, a team they had beaten 5 of 7 times during the regular season?
Iin the clutch, two of the starters failed, and the defense failed.
It seems Dempster just didn't have the fortitude of a Carpenter or a Gibson, etc.; the pressure seemed to get to him, leading him to give far more walks than he did per game during the season.
Then with Zambrano on the mound, the emotionally volatile narcissist, and erratic performer over the last half of the season, the Cubs seemed to tense up, and they made a record number of errors.
Being in a deep hole by the third game, the pitching and defense returned to normal, but the hitters seemed to be pressing against a very good pitcher, and that was the end of the series.
Reminding players of the "curse" by having a Greek Orthodox priest sprinkle holy water on the field before the first game at Wrigley probably didn't help put the team in the right frame of mind either. Sports psychologists tell us that athletes perform much better when they aim for success rather than when they aim for avoiding failure.
But aiming to avoid failure has become the definitive value and a core tradition of Cub culture.
The Cubs don't need a lot of different players, other than to replace Fukedome with an impact lefthanded hitting outfielder. Otherwise, the Cubs have an excellent lineup that needs only some tweeking.
Nor do the Cubs need a new manager. Piniella is very good.
What the Cubs seem to need is to replace their culture of avoiding failure with a culture of anticipating success. A real change in culture, not just the adoption of "Cubs swagger".
Imagine what a Pujols or Gibson would do for that team. Fortunately, the Cards have Pujols, and they have a deep tradition, going all the way back to the Gashouse Gang right up to the present of "Playing a hard nine". Cardinal players in this era, like those since the 1920's, play like they have a chance to beat anyone, even when the odds seem stacked against them.
The Cardinal culture of winning seems to be a key factor in the Cardinals having been the most dangerous NL team in the World Series in the last 100 years. In the four Series they have lost in their nine since the end of World War II, there was either a fluke (in '68 superb outfielder Curt Flood slipping in center field against the Tigers in game 7, and in '85 the umpire's blatantly bad call at first base), or the team was deflated by a major injury just before the Series began (losing Vince Coleman in a tangle with the tarp in '87, losing Chris Carpenter to a nerve problem in 2004). Even with those mishaps and missteps, the Cardinals are 5-4 in the World Series since WWII and 10-7 in their last 100 years.
Meanwhile, the Cubs have been losers of their last 12 final post-season series, including 7 World Series losses from 1908 to 1945. Hardly anyone alive today remembers a Cub World Series victory. No wonder the Cubs have a culture of losing. Until that culture changes, it looks like a good bet that their tradition of ultimate futility will continue, even in years when the team has the talent to win.
0 recs |
48 comments
Email
Print
Comments
this is nonsense
the cardinals have pulled plenty of their own postseason choke jobs - they blew 3-1 series leads in ‘68, ’85, and ’96, and they lost to inferior teams in the ’85 and ’87 world series. and that’s to say nothing of the 2004 disappearing act vs boston.
second, there’s a lot of winners on that cub team -- including one, jim edmonds, who helped create the cards’ “winning culture” that you celebrate. edmonds is a winner. lou piniella is a winner, who won world series as both a player and a manager.. derrek lee, alfonso soriano, neal cotts, jason marquis - they’ve all got series rings.
cardinal fans don’t need to take pleasure in another north side misfortune. we don’t need to puff ourselves up over that.
by lboros on Oct 6, 2008 4:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think it's perfectly fine
to take pleasure in 100 years of futility at the expense of our biggest rival. That’s what rivalries are about!
If Boston was still WS-less since 1918 would Yankees fans be rubbing it in even though they didn’t make the postseason? You betcha!
If Michigan was ranked #1 and got upset by some unranked scrubs would Ohio State fans jump for joy? Hell yes!
Did Mizzou fans take great pleasure in seeing the Tigers destroy Nebraska on their home field?
Yes, Pinella, D Lee, Soriano, et al. have been “winners” at one time or another, but now they’re Cubs! So join me in a toast to an unprecedented CENTURY OF SHAME!
by mojo7102 on Oct 6, 2008 6:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
haha. soriano, marquis "winners"?
Q: point of information… when has either soriano or marquis ever been on a world-series-winning roster??
A: never. soriano played a total of 31 games in the two seasons he “earned” his yankees rings. in those REGULAR SEASON games, he hit .172 with nearly as many strikeouts as total bases!
and i think we all know the answer RE: marquis.
i guess neal cotts is the ultimate definition of a “winner,” just like ted williams is the quintessential embodiment of a “loser.”
anyway, i’ll take plenty of pleasure in watching the cubs’ losing tradition march forward – and i won’t feel bad about “puffing myself up,” either! that’s a rivalry for ya. baseball wouldn’t feel right without it.
"so if you can’t understand what someone else is saying why don’t you just shut up about it instead of being a jerk-off?"
"i’d challenge you to offer me alternatives which would convey the same level of meaning without being even more wordy and verbose."
by baw on Oct 6, 2008 7:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
ok, now i get it
so soriano is a loser, but aaron miles and david eckstein are winners. marquis is a loser, but jeff weaver (as long as he’s clad in cardinal red) is a winner.
derrek lee = loser. preston wilson = winner..
it all makes sense.
by lboros on Oct 6, 2008 7:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i'm not the one who started handing out "winner" labels!
it’s an absurd exercise, as i meant to point out with my ted williams comment. aaron miles and david eckstein are “winners,” whatever that means, by YOUR definition, not mine.
it’s even more absurd when jason marquis and neal cotts are your examples!
"so if you can’t understand what someone else is saying why don’t you just shut up about it instead of being a jerk-off?"
"i’d challenge you to offer me alternatives which would convey the same level of meaning without being even more wordy and verbose."
by baw on Oct 6, 2008 7:32 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the author's point is that winning is a mind-set
that can be learned and passed on; he suggests that in st louis it has been passed down from the Gas House Gang to the Gibson/Brock era to the current group. and my counterpoint is that - using the author’s logic - the cubs have a large number of guys who’ve already acquired that mind-set. did jim edmonds lose the winning mind-set when he joined the cubs and suddenly acquire the mind-set of jim hickman?
you can laugh at some of my examples if you want, but i’ll stand by my point - ie, that lack of a winning mind-set doesn’t explain what happened to cubs this october. they have plenty of guys who “know how to win,” from the manager on down.
by lboros on Oct 7, 2008 12:35 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
further thought
this post is really arguing that having guys like gibson and brock in your franchise history is more important than having previous championships winners on your active roster -- even guys as insignificant as neal cotts. he’s entitled to that opinion (and you’re entitled to agree w/ him), but i don’t think that’s accurate.
by lboros on Oct 7, 2008 12:48 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i agree about the silliness of a “winning mindset” and i certainly don’t agree with CardsWin’s post. It seems to say that the only way to win is to have a tradition of winning – hey, someone notify the Tampa Bay affiliate.
but you have to admit it’s a little silly to immediately drop a name like jason marquis as evidence that, au contraire, the cubs DO employ “winners”! especially “winners” of the ilk CardsWin cited: pujols, gibson, etc. it’s a cockamamie post, yeah, but what’s jason marquis got to do with it??
thought it was funny, that’s all. and what’s wrong with taking a little pleasure in north side misfortune, anyway??
"so if you can’t understand what someone else is saying why don’t you just shut up about it instead of being a jerk-off?"
"i’d challenge you to offer me alternatives which would convey the same level of meaning without being even more wordy and verbose."
by baw on Oct 7, 2008 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about Jose Oquendo?
He is going to be historically insignificant to all other organizations but this one. But to the Cardinals he is an elder statesman conecting to winning periods. I don’t want to argue this.
I think this is a business school conversation about organizational cultrure. Employees contribute to that culture. Consumers contribute to the culture. Organizational leaderhip contributes to the culture. It is a three-legged stool where the missing leg is the most important. If we look at the Cardinals from ‘82-’06 you can defintely find the missing link in most of those teams. I would argue that we had a really short period from ‘88-’94 where we were really poor teams and organizational leadership (ownership) was crushing us.
In the Cubs case I can agree that it is definitely not the employees. The team is really strong. I think currently it is weak in its ownership group as in it has none. You could argue that this doesn’t have an effect on the current team in a short series but that it short sighted. I think the consumer culture (fans) are kinda weak, they really have no clue what it is to win. I live in Chicago and I heard over and over from a cubs fan that they are not watching the series, “Because it will break my heart.” This was before the series began. I was at the second game last week and people left after the Dodgers scored on all the errors. Fans were leaving a playoff game in the 4th inning. That stadium was dead.
by BigJawnMize on Oct 7, 2008 10:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think Edmonds...
lost the winning mind-set when he hit that wall…or that other wall…or that other wall.
by Jumsy on Oct 7, 2008 1:06 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Repeated loss can make a bunch expect defeat. - The Hardball Times
No doubt, Larry, you will disdain the recent piece in the Hardball Times as “nonsense”, given that you evidently regard it ridiculous to suggest that psychology or culture have anything whatsoever to do with sports performance and the “winning tradition” you see in the Cardinal franchise. It seems in your view that if one cannot present quantitative data to support a hypothesis about sports performance – if a potential factor cannot be quanitified – then it is beneath contempt to even consider it a factor.
When you see this “heretical” quote in the Hardball Times, even though it is said in jest, you will no doubt be mobilized to assemble an inquisition into that website’s right to exist in your baseball universe:
“To hell with the perfectly sabermetric point of view.” ~ Chris Jaffe of The Hardball Times
The Corpse on the Dissecting Table
by Chris Jaffe of The Hardball Times
October 13, 2008
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/the-corpse-on-the-dissecting-table/
[Excerpts]
They Cubs have dropped 13 of their last 14 postseason series, but they’ve
never looked as utterly inept as the last two….
With repeated and unprecedented choke jobs, you have to wonder what the
heck is going on. From a perfectly sabermetric point of view, the last two
postseasons can be shrugged off as a quirk of sample size. To hell with the
perfectly sabermetric point of view. Again, it’s the process, not the
result, that sets off the alarm bells….
It’s unduly simplistic to claim a sole cause for the 2007-8 shortcomings,
but some underlying causes can be rooted out. A key one revolves around the
decisions and actions of the team’s manager, Lou Piniella….
Stonewall Jackson once noted that repeated victory will make an army invisible. He meant they’d have more faith in themselves, come to expect victory, and be willing to endure greater costs to achieve their goals than a less proven unit would.
The converse is also true. Repeated loss can make a bunch expect defeat. When the wheels start coming off, the result can be a ghastly sight….
by CardsWin on Oct 14, 2008 4:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well...
Derrek Lee won a ring with the Marlins, and baw didn’t argue with your assertion that he’s a “winner.” Meanwhile, I do agree with him that Soriano and Marquis don’t fit the label; aren’t they typically viewed as a couple of flakes (who’ve never played on series winning rosters)?
Anyway, I’m a little taken aback by this fanpost. The Cubs stink no matter how you cut the mustard — they haven’t won a championship in 100 years! So I don’t see the use in calling Zambrano an “emotionally volatile narcissist.” Z’s real problem was his shoulder. I say we call a spade a spade here; the Cubs didn’t lose because they peed on themselves under the bright playoff lights. They lost because the Dodgers were a better team. If you enjoy laughing at the plight of other teams (and god knows the sweep gave me a hearty chuckle), realize that we don’t have to play armchair psychology in order to find humor in the Cubs losing. They provide all the laughs themselves: by…losing!
by jdub176 on Oct 6, 2008 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You're misconstruing this post and over reacting
I am not bashing the Cubs. I actually feel for all the congenial Cubs fans out there (aside from the minority who fill the Wrigley bleachers and the internet blogs with nasty remarks). I’m just observing how remarkable it is that a team that had such a superior record and had dominated the opponent was swept in three games.
You and others can disagree that culture has an effect. I disagree. A Pujols or a Gibson has a powerful effect on a team, not only by their direct talent and play, but by the attitude and frame of mind and focus they generate among their teammates. Adding a Will Clark to a team can lift it’s spirits. Adding a Larry Walker can loosen up the clubhouse so the guys can play without tensing up at the plate and in the field. A Joe Torre can mold the culture of his team in a way that improves performance. A Larry Bowa can do just the opposite.
Disagree if you want. I respect that. But to call the notion that culture makes a difference nonsense is not worthy of respect. And it is an ironic accusation….
by CardsWin on Oct 6, 2008 10:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i disagree w/ the post for various reasons
first of all, you don’t really talk about culture at all -- all you do is recite the cards’ various triumphs, and make the self-serving argument that all of our losses were flukes of some sort. in any case, i don’t know what you mean by the term “winning culture,” except that you’re sure the cardinals have it.
if you mean “tradition,” obviously the cards have a very proud one; i’ve celebrated it routinely on this blog. but it’s also a fact that between 1982 and 2006 we endured a full generation of october failure, much of it rather undignified; what became of our “culture of winning” then? in truth, the team’s frustrations had nothing to do with culture; they had to do with untimely injuries; the lack of an rbi man or an ace starter; or the simple fact that anything can happen in a short series.
that’s really where i disagree with you. i don’t think the baseball playoffs test “culture.” under the current system, i don’t really think they test much of anything (see my comments in guayzimi’s fanpost). i think they’re as dependent upon luck as anything else. what happened to the cubs this year? i don’t really know -- but your post didn’t provide any insight, other than to restate the obvious: they haven’t won a championship in 100 years. to me, the post is just an exercise in piling on.
by lboros on Oct 7, 2008 12:19 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It’s odd that you acknowledge quite glibly that the Cardinals have a winning “tradition” while you scorn the idea that they have a culture. The tradition you speak of is part of the larger Cardinal culture. I described it already, as a mindset that by hustling and playing all out every inning of every game, the Cardinals believed they could beat any team. The Gashouse Gang established that tradition. It has been continued and reinforced over and over in different eras.
I don’t claim that culture is the only factor in winning. Far from it. But there is good reason to think that culture is a factor that can make a difference between winning and losing. I already mentioned several players who reportedly had a noticeable impact on the team’s performance, according to various players and managers themselves. And I mentioned the findings of sports psychologists around the impact of mindset.
Here’s one example. Several years ago psychologists conducted a content analysis of interviews with players and managers on MLB teams with roughly equivalent won-lost records as the playoffs approached. They found that players and managers were more likely to get into the playoffs, by a significant margin, if they were most emphatic about the possibility of winning and less concerned about the difficulty of their challenges or the prospect of losing. I don’t have the reference on hand, but I could dig it up.
Every organization has a culture, and that culture has a significant, pervasive effect on the success of the organization. (There’s a great deal of research about this, too. I won’t bore you with the empirical references here, but I’d be glad to pass some on to you if you’d like.)
Culture is simply the prevailing, persistent pattern of ideas, beliefs, assumptions, customs, symbols, and traditions that are shared by a group. Different teams, different cities have different cultures. They are ever evolving, but the core pattern of beliefs and assumptions tend to get passed down by various “rituals”, “legends”, “heroes”, and “myths” that express the core beliefs and assumptions and practices of the culture. This is what makes culture persist for a long time, changing much more slowly than particular customs and symbols do.
One more thing. My original post was not “piling it on” the Cubs or their fans. I already explained that, but you seemed to disregard it, so I’ll say more. The fact is that I praised the talent on the team and the quality of the manager. I expressed not a word of pleasure in my description of the Cubs’ culture and their record of failure, yet you ridiculed my post by calling it “nonsense”, and you persist in construing my post as “taking pleasure” in the Cubs’ failure. (What is that about?) You’re absolutely wrong. I take no pleasure in the suffering of the Cubs and their fans. Quite the contrary. I went to college in Evanston, just outside Chicago, had my first job out of grad school in Chicago, bought my first home there, and still have dear friends there. I’ve been a Cardinal fan since Musial’s last year, so I always want St. Louis to beat the Cubs, but I harbor no ill will toward the Cubs or anyone who pulls for them.
by CardsWin on Oct 7, 2008 1:33 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you're not doing any objective analysis
you only talk about two teams -- the cardinals and the cubs. you’re not discussing, in a broad sense, what differentiates a winning culture from a losing one. you’re just discussing what makes the cardinals good and the cubs bad.
the cubs are bad, in your telling, because ryan dempster “lacks fortitude” and zambrano is an “emotionally volatile narcissist” whose erratic character makes the team fold under pressure. of course, joaquin andujar was every bit the emotionally volatile narcissist that zambrano is, but according to you he would be one of the authors of the cards’ “winning culture” - without him, they don’t win the title in 1982. roger clemens was also an emotionally volatile narcissist. so was babe ruth. so was mr october himself, reggie jackson. and don’t get me started on the narcissism of ozzie smith . . . . . the yankee and athletic dynasties of the 1970s practically defined emotionally volatile narcissism -- both clubs were owned by such individuals. yet they played great baseball in october every year. hell, if a team doesn’t show some emotion in the postseason people will say they lost because they "lacked fire . . . . "
you’re arguing that the results of postseason series reflect the character of the individuals on the winning / losing sides. that’s what is nonsense in my opinion. without question, mental / emotional factors play a huge role in high-stakes confrontations such as this -- but they’re temporary factors, not permanent character issues. the cardinals played scared in the 2004 world series vs boston, but the same team played without fear in 2006. it had nothing to do with character, everything to do with circumstance. perhaps circumstance contributed to the cubs’ poor play in 2008, but you don’t address that at all. you address the 100 years of losing and the supposed character flaws of certain players.
the problem with the post is that you’re not addressing the subject of “culture” in any depth or with any objectivity. the post simply says, “cards good, cubs bad.”
by lboros on Oct 7, 2008 12:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Culture is not about temporary mental or emotional states
You’re changing the subject by focusing on temporary mental and emotional states. Personalities do have an effect, too, but I’m talking about culture, which is a larger factor, as persistent a phenomenon as personality. When Roger Clemens became emotional he kept it under control enough to channeled that emotional energy into better performance. Zambrano does not seem to have learned how to focus his emotions that way. The two are both very emotional, but one is more competent in managing his emotions. Social scientists call it emotional intelligence.
But that’s all a tangent. Culture is the question I’m raising. Mental and emotional states are temporary, yes. But culture is a pervasive underlying force that induces certain kinds of mental and emotional states, consistently, in recurring situations, such as one where the stakes are high. Whether one focuses on winning or on avoiding failure is a result of individual personality, yes, but it is also a result of culture.
Again, if you don’t believe that culture has an effect on performance, or if you don’t believe that focusing on winning versus avoiding failure makes a difference in performance, especially athletic performance, may I suggest that you google the business school stuides that have demonstrated the efficacy of culture in organizational performance, and google the studies of sports psychologists that confirming the efficacy of positive mental imagery and such, vs. avoidance of failure?
by CardsWin on Oct 8, 2008 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
we agree that mental / emotional factors are relevant to performance
we disagree over whether this post contains any worthwhile analysis of those subjects. . in my opinion, it doesn’t even come close.
by lboros on Oct 9, 2008 9:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"I don't think the baseball playoffs test 'culture'...." - Larry Boros
The Tampa Rays and their manager, announcer, and fans evidently disagree with your disdain for the impact of culture, Larry. Here are excerpts from a recent ESPN article that focuses on Joe Maddon’s success in building a winning Rays culture:
Maddon leading the cultural revolution
By Howard Bryant
ESPN.com, October 13, 2008
[Excerpts]
A cultural revolution
There is a segment of the baseball establishment willing to listen to Joe Maddon, hungry for a new paradigm, and another segment that seems untrustworthy of the motivational speeches, the references to Sisyphus and the unorthodox methods that appear part Oprah and Dr. Phil, part Vince Lombardi and — given the number of scrapes his team gets in and his baseball lineage — part Leo Durocher.
…Said former big league player and manager and current television broadcaster Buck Martinez…, “It is a total cultural revolution because they’ve never had a culture of winning. That’s what he’s trying to do, and it’s absolutely appropriate.”
“The culture here had to be changed,” Maddon said. "If you go to a different country, you have to learn to eat different food. You have to learn a different language, different dress, different customs. We had to change all of that. Why did I think it was going to work? I don’t know. I just had a lot of confidence that everything I had thought about could work.
“More than anything else, I’m trying to get us to play the game the way it was played in 1920. I’m a traditionalist,” Maddon said. "I want to play in the simplest way. I believe that. I think people are really reading it the wrong way. I want my defense to play catch. I want my pitchers to have command of the fastball first. I want my hitters to have a two-strike mentality.
Maddon believes in psychological construction as much as calisthenics. There was the time during spring training when the military’s traveling baseball team was on a furlough from Iraq and asked Maddon if it could take batting practice with the Rays. Maddon agreed, but went a step further: He asked the soldiers to talk to his team about Iraq, about life when life isn’t about losing a tough game and still earning more than 99 percent of the population, but actually is a game of life and death. After the soldiers, Maddon invited Dick Vitale and Tampa Bay Buccaneers defensive coordination Monte Kiffin to speak to his team.
Here’s the link to the complete article: Maddon leading the cultural revolution
by CardsWin on Oct 16, 2008 3:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Adding a Larry Walker...
…can help THIS to happen, a series that is so horribly one-sided and was over before it even began. When Will the Thrill joined the Cards, they got spanked in the NLCS by the Mets. So…adding those guys, or a similar guy, would have helped the Cubs win a series and then get waxed at some other point, instead of the first series? Is that what you’re saying?
Of that list you provided (and I mean the Pujols, Gibson, Clark, Walker, Torre, and Bowa list), three of them (Walker, Bowa, Clark) never won a WS as a player. Bowa won one, but he wasn’t particularly good. Pujols and Gibby are/were very very very good baseball players. Gibson was, by all accounts, an intense scary SOB. So how would that help loosen up a clubhouse? I’m confused. This post seems to be all over the place in terms of overall argument. Maybe I’m sleepy from grading papers all damn night, I don’t know…But it seems wacko to me.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Oct 7, 2008 3:31 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Pujols
I don’t understand where this Idea of Pujols carrying a winning culture comes from. Your argument is that the team carries on a winning culture because past players learned that from past teams. I don’t understand how Pujols is a member of that winning culture because when he came in there was no winning culture. The mid-lat 90s wasn’t a particular polorizing period for the BOB so where did Pujols pick this up from? The Idea of a team winning because the players pass on a winning culture is a fabrication of the fan, not a reality for the men in uniform.
by Viva Vina on Oct 7, 2008 4:12 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Studies show that culture can create sustained organizational excellence
Over the last 50 years there have been many periods when the Cardinals had meager talent on the team. Yet the idea that they have nevertheless maintained a winning culture over the last half century (and before) is reflected in the Cardinals’ record of accomplishment that is unmatched in one respect, at least, as described by Rick Hummel:
From Rick Hummel, ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH, 09/28/2008 (excerpts):
Throwing out the strike-shortened year of 1994, when there was no postseason, the Cardinals have not had two consecutive losing seasons in nearly 50 years….
No other team is even close to the Cardinals in the length of time between back-to-back losing (full) seasons.
In the National League, the closest for consistency is Los Angeles, which last had back-to-back losing seasons in 1986-87. Atlanta last had consecutive losing seasons in 1989-90 and Houston in 1990-91.
The Chicago White Sox are the somewhat surprising leaders in the American League. The Sox haven’t had consecutive losing seasons since 1988-89. The New York Yankees are next, last having back-to-back losers in 1991-92.
Perhaps one clue to how the Cardinals have maintained a winning culture for so long is reflected in this observation from Derrick Goold:
From Derrick Goold, St. Louis Post-Dispatch 10.07.2008:
"Every player in the Cardinals’ Organization since 1940 has had contact with George Kissell and they have all been better for it. … Well known for his emphasis on fundamentals, George taught several generations of Redbirds how to play baseball."
by CardsWin on Oct 9, 2008 3:55 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't think its the cub culture
so much as it is the media and their constant reminder of the 100yr mark….
Mark DeRosa was quoted as saying that players come to chicago because they want to be apart of the team that ends the streak…….which creates more pressure put on the players by themselves to be “the team”.
It doesn’t help with all the people waving their “this is the year” or “It’s gonna happen” signs. That just puts the thought of HAVING to do it that year instead of relaxing a letting their talent shine….
by StlCUBBIE on Oct 6, 2008 6:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
yep
it’s kind of like when you can’t poop with someone in the next room. ryan theriot actually cannot get an XBH if there’s a world series-related sign anywhere in the stadium.
"so if you can’t understand what someone else is saying why don’t you just shut up about it instead of being a jerk-off?"
"i’d challenge you to offer me alternatives which would convey the same level of meaning without being even more wordy and verbose."
by baw on Oct 6, 2008 7:51 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I enjoyed watching the Cubs lose as much as anyone...
But this is just kind of silly.
It seems Dempster just didn’t have the fortitude of a Carpenter or a Gibson, etc.; the pressure seemed to get to him, leading him to give far more walks than he did per game during the season.
Who in the names of the baseball gods, outside of a few fanatic Cub partisans, asserted that Ryan Dempster had the fortitude of Chris Carpenter and Bob Gibson? This seems like a bizarre comparison. Maybe I’m missing something?
Imagine what a Pujols or Gibson would do for that team.
Yes, I do believe these players, two of the best at their respective positions in the history of the damned world, would help the Cubs.
by jdub176 on Oct 6, 2008 8:24 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Does anyone notice that this is the only good year dempster has had in his career? The Cards may be a little goofy for signing Lohse, but the Cubs might be even more stupid if they give Dempster a long term deal.
by miniboscorino on Oct 6, 2008 8:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
"Culture of losing?"
I’m sorry, but that’s patently absurd.
The Cubs ran into a team that had three very good pitchers pitch very well. That is why the Dodgers won. They held down the offense that was the best in the league for three games. Tip a cap to them.
The playoffs are a crapshoot. Period. People who are very good play very well sometimes, and very poorly during others. ARod was a playoff beast in Seattle and in NY until the 2005 playoffs (go look it up…I swear it’s true!), but has recently had his struggles…Was he a winner then and a loser now, or has he just always been a loser? How does one decide that? Is it based on performance, or is it based on the team’s success? Zambrano has pitched pretty well in the playoffs, is he a winner? Or not because his team has never won? Was Albert Pujols a loser before 2006, when his team lucked into a playoff spot, then got brilliant, Cy Young-quality pitching from Jeff Weaver and Jeff Suppan and a bullpen full of rookies and call-ups and won the WS, despite Pujols struggling in the NLCS and WS. So, since Pujols’s team won, is he a winner? Or is he a loser because he performed not up to standards that series? Was he spooked by the playoff bunting or something that time around?
It makes me sick defending the Cubs…it really does. But when a team that is clearly the best in the league for 162 games, and plays poorly in games 163-5 and goes down, and is then called a band of losers it galls me a bit. It is against pure and simple common sense.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Oct 6, 2008 9:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
well said.
It’s the ultimate situation of small sample size, the small sample size that really matters. Everyone is trying to explain why the cubs lost, teams lose three games in a row routinely throughout the season, this time it just happened to come when they really counted.
by davethebutcher on Oct 6, 2008 9:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bottom line
The Cub offense has been streaky all year long — they haven’t consistently scored runs this season and have really struggled against sinkerballers and they just had to face three good sinkerballers in that series.
I have a ton of friends who were Cub fans and kept telling them the worst thing they could do was allow Milwaukee to make the playoffs because they would get the Dodgers in the first round, and that the Dodgers didn’t match up well with them. All I heard was “Bring it on, we dominated them in the regular season.” Although the Cubs had a 5-2 record against the Dodgers, they hadn’t played them since June. Even then, nearly all of those games were close, the Dodgers just couldn’t score runs early in the season. That changed when they picked up Manny and he lifted the whole lineup to another level.
Never underestimate the hot hand: Reference: St. Louis 2006, Florida 2003 and 1997, and Boston Red Sox 2004.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 7, 2008 1:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The probability that the sweep was just a fluke is low
Let’s assume that the Cubs would have a 55% chance of beating the Dodgers in any one game, going with the best pitchers on both teams. The difference in their records over 162 games and their record head to head would make that 55% a reasonable assumption.
Then the probability of the Cubs losing the firs three games to the Dodgers would be less than 10%. The probably would be even less for the Cubs getting blown out in two of those three games, after the Cubs had a much, much better run differential over the course of the long season.
Likewise, the chances of Dempster walking 7 batters in one game would be extremely low. The probably of the Cub infield making four errors in game 2 was even more extremely low.
Honestly, if someone had offered to bet you at the beginning of the series that the Cubs would lose in three straight, and they had offered you 10-1 odds, betting a hundred dollars against your ten, would you not have taken that bet?
The three losses and the occurence of various highly improbable events that contributed to them could be just a fluke, yes. But it is a viable hypothesis that one factor that made a difference in the Cubs’ losses was their mindset, affected by a culture of avoiding failure that pervades the fans and the media and even the ownership that enlisted the Greek Orthodox priest to bless Wrigley Field before game 1.
by CardsWin on Oct 7, 2008 1:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ay-yi-yi
There is this website called baseballreference.com. It has about all of the information you could ever want about baseball on it. Here are some interesting tidbits for you, some of which didn’t come off of B-R.com, but some did…
- In 6 of his 33 starts, Dempster had 4 or more walks. Granted, 4 is not 7, but 4 is an objectively awful total. He had 5 twice, and 6 twice. Is there a huge difference between 6 and 7? Not really. We’re not talking about CC Sabathia, a guy with truly brilliant control, all of a sudden walking a bunch of guys. We’re talking about a guy who has been effective with average or worse control. Factor in the fact that it was a damp night in Chicago in October, and it doesn’t require some hypothesis about a guy being burdened by the expectations and the culture of losing that is associated with the Northsiders to explain an evening of less than stellar control.
- The Cubs lost 6 in a row between August 30th and September 6th. According to your logic, it is then possible that the Cubs are unable to cope with early September baseball? Are the pressures of the early fall-season too much? Are Cubs burdened by the upcoming corn harvests in Illinois? Hey, neither of us have more than circumstantial evidence anyway, so why is my hypothesis wrong, but yours is correct? The way I see it, both are completely absurd. And besides that…the Cubs had proven they were capable of losing 6 in a row, so really 3 in a row is nothing compared to that. I’m sure they had 3 game losing streaks early in the season, but I really don’t plan on poring through their entire schedule to figure it out.
- ESPN ran a simulation using Diamond Mind software. The link is right here. Out of 1000 trials, the Dodgers came ahead in a majority of them. It’s not a convincing margin, but at least according to this software the series was basically a coin flip, with a slight advantage to LA. Is it not possible that the Dodgers are simply a better team? Is it not possible that that is why they swept the Cubs? Given that small sample size baseball is essentially a crapshoot, I hesitate to make that connection myself…but isn’t it possible? Of course it is! Oh, but wait…no…it’s the culture of losing.
- How does this culture of losing account for the fact that Chad Billingsley is really M-F-ing good at throwing baseballs in a pitching delivery? Did the team’s culture of losing make it difficult for them to hit a guy who throws a 95 mph 4-seamer wiht late life, a 90 mph bat-sawing cutter, and a knee-buckling 80 mph charlie? Did that culture of losing make it so that he threw brilliantly that night, spotting well and so forth? Because I have to be honest…he was pretty much perfect that night, culture of losing or not. I think the Big Red Machine, reincarnated today with all the advantages of modern training and blah blah blah would have likely had a difficult time hitting him. Or how about Hiroki Kuroda being particularly sharp? That man is inconsistent, but when he’s on he’s pretty tough to hit. He’s been quite effective since August 1st especially, posting a 2.57 era, an opponents OPS of .598, and 47K/11BB in 60+ innings. So the guy is a good pitcher who has been pitching quite well. I assume you have heard the old phrase that good pitching will beat good hitting? Well, there you go.
- The Cubs are 12-12 since September 1st. That means they’ve been playing mediocre baseball. The Dodgers were 17-8 during the same period. To me that indicates that they were doing quite well, albeit against the lean part of the NL. The way I see it, the Cubs weren’t playing their best and the Dodgers were, if nothing else, playing solid ball. See point 3.
- You have repeatedly mentioned the error issue and used it as evidence of their collective bed-wetting. Whelp…to that I say they weren’t particularly good in the first place. They ranked 9th in the league in errors, puting them in the bottom tier in that regard…granted, errors are in imperfect stat…So let’s try a different tact…Let’s say you like Fielding % for analyzing defenses…I don’t, but let’s say you do…The Cubs are 10th in that one. Do you like more advanced ones? Middle of the pack in RZR, particularly the infield, where the infamous 4 error game occurred. They did allow very-nearly the most unearned runs in the NL…but they don’t allow many runs collectively, given the fact that their staff is quite good, so this is meaningless. How about an explanation for their poor fielding at home? Perhaps they were overcome by a culture of losing…Or, perhaps, their staff faced a team that was hitting well and allowing fewer K’s by putting the ball in play more…This forced an average at best defense to make plays, and they didn’t. Have they had games this bad during the season? Possibly, I’m too tired to go look it up. However, I would not be shocked if they had a game or two in which they botched several plays. No, this is not common…but it does happen. It’s goddamn baseball, and teams have shitty days, shitty 2-days, shitty weeks, or, in the case of the pre-2008 Rays, shitty existences. It’s called random variance, and it happens b/c, once again, it’s GODDAMN baseball and its GODDAMN WEIRD game.
Pardon my language, but it’s late, I’m tired and I feel that you will not hear me. You’d rather spout a hypothesis that negative hocus-pocus caused the Cubs to lose. Here’s my theory: the Cubs have not played great ball over the past month. Their defense is mediocre at best, and they ran into great pitching by the Dodgers. They lost b/c the Dodgers played better baseball…you know, like they swung the bats better, pitched better, and fielded better. More than anything, their pitchers, who are good, pitched well. Why did they get swept? Well, they had three bad games in a row…it’s not exactly rocket science, and it happens throughout the course of the year. A team that was great through a 162 games has bumps along the way, and the Cubs had the misfortune of having a rough patch right at the end of the year…This isn’t necessarily perfectly consistent, and I don’t give a rat’s ass…b/c ultimately I’m defending the Cubs against someone who beat the “Cesar Izturis has been super” drum way too much, even when it was clear he was a far-more expensive version of Brendan Ryan, a point that had been made a billion-jajillion times before you made it yourself, and yet rejecting that decision in favor of your Hail Cesar agenda…
Let me ask you this question is passing…Who had a bigger culture of winning in 2004? Was it the Yankees, the Red Sox, or the Cardinals? You may rank them if you like, I really don’t care, but I’d imagine that the Sox are pretty much at the bottom of that list b/c of their own version of hocus-pocus. And, miraculously, the Sawx prevailed over both, winning 8 games in a row and bringing several generations of frustration to an end. Boy, that culture of losing on that squad really brought them down, didn’t it? Because there were no hocus-pocus ceremonies during the years leading up to that one, I’m sure…Oh, wait. Please think about that, and remember that what you have written is basically a fancily-worded smear job and nothing more.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Oct 7, 2008 3:21 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Brilliant analysis, very well written
I wholeheartedly agree with spants. Your argument is beautiful. Just the kind that bring me to VEB. But you do throw up some straw men and knock them down easily.
I have not and do not say that culture is the predominant factor in winning or losing.
Nor do I discount the obvious importance of talent in winning.
Nor have I said that one player can change a culture alone.
Those are easy assertions to disprove, and I’ve made none of them. In fact, I would assert just the opposite in each case.
I am simply raising a hypothesis, one that is extremely difficult to prove quantitatively, that culture is an important enough factor to make a difference in winning or losing.
Let me pose the question in mathematical terms. The Cubs have lost 9 games in a row in the post season. If we assume they had a 50% chance of winning any of those games, then the statistical odds of losing 9 in a row is less than 1 in 1000. Your argument seems to be that talent is such a huge factor in winning that it overrides all other factors, but that a talented team might run into bad luck now and then, a random string of losses. I agree with the premise, of course; good teams do have bad streaks. But any good scientist would say in assessing a streak that has less than a 0.001 chance of happening that the probability of that streak happening merely by chance is so low that it strongly suggests some other factor is having an effect.
Since you dismiss outright the notion that culture is a factor in winning, then what is your alternative hypothesis to explain the Cub losing streak in the post-season? And how do you yourself defend the effect of that factor quantitatively and scientifically, not merely by anectdotal evidence?
by CardsWin on Oct 8, 2008 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
My alternative hypothesis
I believe I have outlined that hypothesis for you, at least WRT to this specific series. I’ll go ahead and extend it to their last three series, because ultimately I feel this is the reason why teams lose in the postseason. The teams they played against played better and had the necessary good fortune (i.e. balls landing just fair and all of the other things that are included in the “game of inches” deal, etc.) to knock them off. I’m not exactly sure how what I said was in any way anecdotal. I demonstrated that Ryan Dempster’s control is good, not great, and he has had fits of wildness even during his brilliant 2008 season. I have demonstrated that the Dodgers had some very good pitchers who pitched very well, a difficult thing to overcome in any scenario. I have demonstrated that the Cubs have an average at best defense, so it is not shocking to see them have a poor game or two in the field. I have demonstrated that the Cubs haven’t been the same juggernaut since September 1st. From where I sit, all of these are objective statements of fact, and not anecdotes, especially when YOU were the one to use them to make your case. You used them individually as proof of “greater forces,” and I provided real-world, concrete, objective, baseball-ish reasons why these things that happened, suggesting that while unlikely, they were most certainly NOT impossible.
Why they have not managed to sneak a win or two in there to break up this string? I honestly have no damn clue. It seems that they would have, given that each coin flip (game) is a separate event with a 50 percent chance of winning, and it is unlikely by the eternal laws of the coin flip that one would lose 9 such outcomes in a row.* The best I can say is that they faced a combination of superior play by the opposition, mistakes at inopportune, and bad luck. One of those losses was the infamous Bartman game in 2003, in which a play with a fluky outcome (the Bartman play) was coupled with some awful baseball (the errors that followed). The Marlins were able to capitalize and won the series. No, the odds are not in favor of this sort of streak happening naturally, but considering that we are not talking about a pure coin flip-type situation there are on-the field factors (which I have outlined WRT this last series) that serve as perfectly logical explanations of why the Cubs lost each seperate game.** Furthermore, when one team is better than another, they are more likely to win. I mentioned that the worst team in baseball has somethign like a 35% chance of beating the best in a short series…However, that still gives the better team a 65% chance of winning said series. In this particular example, Diamond Mind, the most sophisticated sim software out there right now, seems to give the advantage to LA, even in a slight one. I’m sure if you examined the 07 NLDS, you’d find that the Cubs (a mediocre team that got in from a weak division) were heavy underdogs against the Diamondbacks. This to me indicates that it’s not exactly a pure coin-flip.
And yes, when things happen that violate probability then there is likely another factor at work…I feel that it is baseball-related, you chalk it up, at least in large part, to a team culture that promotes a losing attitude. I think that is a fair statement, correct? I feel that my position is more objectively defensible, because there are objective measurements of good play vs. bad play and so forth. You seem to have defined winning culture as “what the Cubs don’t have, but the Cardinals do.” I will not rehash LB’s statements earlier, because he stated his statements in a way I cannot. However, I feel the standards I have used a great deal more objective then your stance, which seems to read: It is unlikely the Cubs would lose 9 playoff games in a row, so therefore there is another factor at work. It’s because the Cubs aren’t the Cardinals, or at least don’t have the same culture. Perhaps that is a gross oversimplification. In fact, it probably is. But from where I sit it isn’t far off.
no math was intentionally harmed in the creation of this response.
*which is what baseball is…a series of separate games that always start at 0-0, with only each teams relative strengths and weaknesses THAT PARTICULAR DAY having any bearing on the eventual outcome.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Oct 8, 2008 8:14 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Tautology
I enjoy your comments, sincerely. They’re interesting, passionate, and in many ways very informative. But you have not offered an alternative hypothesis at all. You’ve simply said, in effect, that the Cubs have lost 9 games in a row (among other patterns of failure in the last 100 years, including 7 straight Series losses since 1908), because the other team played better. That is a tautology: “The Cubs lost, therefore they must not have played as well as the other team, and that explains why they lost.” (Of course, I’m paraphrasing the essence of your argument.) With all due respect, such “analysis” explains nothing. It is an invalid argument in scientific logic and in rigorous debate.
The question is WHY did the Cubs not play as well, so often, when they had, on average, talent that good enough to give them approximately a 50% chance of winning each game, based on talent and skill alone. You seem to say that it was just bad luck, a fluke. That could be. Extremely unlikely events do happen. But there is considerable evidence that culture has an impact on performance (I have not been saying at all that it is the predominant factor, especially compared with talent and skill), and there is obviously a distinct culture among Cub fans, media, and even owners that puts an emphasis on the dreaded possibility of losing.
Thus, it is a reasonable hypothesis to suggest that something other than talent and skill per se is a factor when so many losses pile up that the probability becomes so low (an event with a probability less than 2 in 1000 does suggest that some factor is at play that is not taken into account in the prediction of outcomes). I’ve pointed out that culture might be one such factor.
None of the respondents to this post has suggested any other specific, reasonable hypothesis. Several have said that the teams that beat the Cubs just had more talent and skill, or that the Cubs just happened to have a cold streak, and such. But those explanations, too, are tautological.
Please understand that I am not declaring that culture definitely made a difference, nor that it was the primary factor that made a difference. I am just raising the hypothesis that it may have had a difference, and I’ve given various bits of information that woudl fit that hypothesis. So far, no one who has written in this fanpost has disproven that hypothesis. Instead, some have just dismissed it as silly or nonsense, etc. Such subjective declarations do not make a rigorous case.
But you have assembled very specific evidence to argue against the hypothesis. Aside from the tautological conclusion, you make a good case, an interesting case. I respect ihat and appreciate it, even though the case you’ve made doesn’t disprove the proposition any more than the case I’ve made proves the proposition.
What would be most convincing in making the case that culture was not a factor in the Cubs’ remarkable pattern of failure in the post-season in the last four decades (not to mention the last 100 years) would be to offer a specific, plausible alternative explanation. So far, no one has offered such an explanation. It’s difficult to think of one. That leaves culture on the table, neither proven nor disproven, as a factor that has made a difference.
One last note: I find it very surprising that Cardinal fans, of all people, would argue against the impact of culture, given the long tradition the franchise has, that current ownership has systematically reinforced in the last 12 years, that has been actively reinforced by fans that many call the best in the Game, in a city and region that is referred to as “baseball heaven”. So many players have said that St. Louis is such a different place to play, that their level of play is elevated in part by the fans and the owners and the manager and media (all key players in molding and maintaining the Cardinal culture). I wonder why most commentators in this fanpost have argued against the notion that such a special culture could make a real difference (along with other factors, some much more powerful, such as talent and skill, of course!)? I won’t venture to offer a hypothesis to explain that pattern.
by CardsWin on Oct 9, 2008 1:18 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A few other tidbits...
You wrote: “Nor have I said that one player can change a culture alone.”
You also wrote:
“Imagine what a Pujols or Gibson would do for that team.”
“Adding a Larry Walker can loosen up the clubhouse so the guys can play without tensing up at the plate and in the field.”
“Adding a Will Clark to a team can lift it’s spirits.”
So, adding a few players can’t change the culture, except when it does…ok then…
You wrote: “A Joe Torre can mold the culture of his team in a way that improves performance.”
Why can Joe Torre do this, but Lou Piniella can’t? Piniella has WS rings as both a player and manager. Why can’t he do this? Did he put on the Cubs logo and hat and suddenly become a loser, or just too weak to overcome all this stuff?
This is the last thing I am going to say about all of this…I retire from this post after this comment: The Boston Red Sox in 2004 had the biggest “culture of losing” (which you seem to have defined EXTRAORDINARILY loosely as playoff failure, and a lot of it, associated with hocus-pocus rituals) of any of the top-3 teams in baseball (Cards, Sox, Yankees).** And yet, they pulled off the most improbable comeback in LCS history and steamrolled the best team in baseball that year, our Cardinals. I assume you would say that the Sox overcame their culture of losing, but yet you have given no clear indications of how this can be done. Instead, you have basically said that the Cubs stink because of their COL, and will never recover from it…or maybe they will if they add Will the Thrill, although one player can’t change a culture…or something like that. Either way, I’m done with this…
**The Astros were obviously a very strong team that season as well, and took our squad to the breaking point…however, they have no culture of anything, which would seem to suggest that they are not actually a baseball team, and are instead a Flonkerton team.
"Your Holiness, I'm Joseph Medwick. I, too, used to be a Cardinal."-Joe Medwick, to Pope Pius XII.
by redbirdnation8206 on Oct 8, 2008 8:41 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
You know I would feel sorry for Cubs fans IF....
they didn’t pound their chest so much when they are winning and act like the Cubs are a class above everyone else in the process. Now don’t get me wrong …fans of a team that is winning should feel proud and excited but it’s like a majority of Cubs fans love to talk trash when they really haven’t earned anything to do so.
Another point….
It just seems like the Cubs changed from “the lovable loosers” into the “stuck up bears” over the past 10 years or so. 20 years ago when the Cubs had guys like Dawson, Sandberg, Lee Smith, and Mark Grace I actually found myself actually liking the Cubs for awhile…or at least I respected them. Back then I could actually see myself wanting them to win the World Series if we weren’t in contention. But that all changed when Dusty Baker turned the team into a semi-thug group of whiners. I mean they had the gall to get Steve Stone and Chip Carey fired…remember that!?!? Now I know Dusty is long gone…but there is still a stinch of arrogance that hovers over that team and their fans right now. Which is why I don’t feel one bit sorry for them right now. Until a little more class is shown from their fans and even the team to some extent.. it will be really hard for them to make me “like” them again like I did in the late 80’s.
We’ve got a long way to go and a short time to get there.
by KYCards on Oct 7, 2008 3:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
AMEN!
It just seems like the Cubs changed from "the lovable loosers" into the "stuck up bears" over the past 10 years or so.
I’m sooooooooooooooooooooooo glad someone finally said that. They’ve turned into Red Sox fans ever since the Red Sox won the Series in 2004. It used to be fun 10 or 12 years ago to go to Chicago and sit in the bleachers with Cub fans when rooting for the other team — I certainly wouldn’t do that now. It would be like a Yankee fan sitting near the Pesky Pole at Fenway with Yankee gear on.
In my lifetime I’ve seen Cubs fans that I’ve grown up with go from enjoying Cubs baseball win or lose, to arrogant pricks when they’re winning and destitute, “I don’t want to talk about it”, excuse-makers when they’re losing. Every player now is the second coming of some Cub great, and as a fanbase they are way to entranced in looking for the “savior” of the ballclub. Witness how they’ve treated Sosa, Wood, Prior, and to some weird extent, Samardzjia over the last decade.
What I’m basically saying is this: If Rick Ankiel had been a Cub, there’s no way he ever makes it back to the big leagues as an outfielder, because the fans would have sent him into depression for not being the guy who’s “finally going to lead us there”. The Cardinals went on a made the playoffs 3 times after Ankiel lost the plate and won a World Series. There’s an intense amount of pressure on Cub players to win it all that it really must be difficult to perform under those circumstances. To this point, I think that the Cardinals have a leg up. There isn’t anything good being said about anyone on the Cubs ballclub by any Cubs fan I’ve talked to in the last 4 days. I wouldn’t want to be a player that plays under those conditions, would you?
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
by fourstick on Oct 8, 2008 11:13 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Postseason Hump for Cubs
Since 1984, most of the time the Cubs have had a chance to make the playoffs, they have made them. The exceptions are 2001 and 2004. I expected the Cubs to make the playoffs this season.
When the playoffs roll around, I’m always worried about what’s going to happen this time. The players feel the pressure more in the postseason than the regular season. Having good regular seasons is progress for the Cubs, considering where they were in 2006. The Cubs have got to have an attitude change before having playoff success.
"The big possum walks late." - Harry Caray
by memphiscub on Oct 7, 2008 8:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Cards choked worse
We had an opportunity to get into the playoffs. The Brewers lost enough games in September that the Cardinals could have caught them if they were playing like that had most of this entertaining season.
We could’ve made the playoffs but didn’t get it done.
by liam on Oct 8, 2008 1:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
my two cents
its not so much the culture as it is the energy in the stadium. watching those games it just seemed that at the first sign of trouble it was a collective “here we go again.”
i don’t think it is the players choking as much as it is an enormous amount of pressure on their shoulders. i would have to think that being in a cub’s uniform during the playoffs is one of the toughest positions to be in in all of sports. especially when your regular season was so successful and you are expected to beat the other team.
i had a feeling that game 3 was the world series for the cubs. in much the same fashion as the sox coming back against the yanks in 2004 i think if the cubs win game 3 all the weight comes off and they just play baseball.
"Sorry about him, he's dealing with being an inker. " - Chasing Amy
by FutureMan on Oct 8, 2008 2:19 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Where does Tampa fit in all this?
Wouldn’t that be a counterpoint to the losing culture school of thought?
by Merry CRasmus on Oct 8, 2008 7:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
he simply argued that culture can be a factor, sometimes even the deciding factor.
he never argued that culture is necessary to win a championship.
by soccerfreak on Oct 13, 2008 7:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cubs Fans
I am a Cards fan that lives in Wrigleyville so I got to experience the atmosphere of this entire Cubs season first hand. The difference between the regular season and the postseason was like night and day. The mood of the fans really affects the team. The regular season is just a big carefree party and the team is really loose. However, when the postseason rolled around it was a totally different story. The crowd is tense and when something goes wrong they get angry. In game two, once an error occurred, the fans started to boo. I thought that was totally inexcusable. You would never see that at Busch. The negative atmosphere created by the fans had a massive effect on the players and the Cubs went on to make three more errors over the course of the game and subsequently got swept right out of the playoffs. I have no doubt in my mind that if the 2008 Cubs roster played in front of the Busch faithful this year they would have played up to their ability in the postseason.
by TheToddZeileTrain on Oct 18, 2008 10:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
