Now It's Our Turn
Congratulations to the Red Sox. If there's any American League team I "root" for (and by root I mean don't mind seeing win), it's the Red Sox. My dad once got Marty Barrett's autograph on a Red Sox pennant for me, so I suppose that's my connection to the '86 team.
I'm genuinely happy for all the long-suffering Red Sox fans out there, especially the ones who endured '46, '48, '67, '75, and '86. Those who are my age never really suffered enough; I barely recall the '89 NLCS myself, and I was eight years old. I am happy for Bill Simmons, aka the Sports Guy, whom I have been reading since 1998, way back when he could only be found on the Digital City Boston section of AOL. His readership was measured in the hundreds and he personally returned e-mails within about two hours because he had nothing better to do. But he and his father deserve this one, no doubt about it.
And in that same link is an e-mail he was sent by a Cubs fan, which I will copy here:
"For Cubs fans, you know what this feels like? I just figured it out a moment ago. It's like having this friend who suffered with you through thick and thin, sharing in your deepest pain and your greatest hopes. Finally, one day, your friend finally gets what you've both been hoping for. And you're really, really happy for them, but you can't deny that you're also jealous. And you're a bit sad, and a bit scared, because you know that from now on, you're going at it alone. (Also, you have an annoying little brother with the same problem, but nobody gives a crap about him and neither do you.)"
Of all the e-mails he posted from Cub fans, this is the one that is closest to how I think the Cubs fit into everything. First of all, I have never equated the Red Sox and Cubs in terms of their failures. Boston had lost four straight seven-game World Series before they won, all of which have occurred since the Cubs were in their last Series. The Red Sox have usually put decent teams on the field, whereas the Cubs have, more often than not, been just downright bad for the past 59 years (dating back to '45, their last Series appearance). I mean, the Cubs just this year posted back-to-back winning seasons for the first time since '72 and '73. That's downright incredible when you think about it. They've never really had a legitimate chance to win a World Series because their good teams were always one-year flukes, for the most part; the team of the late-'60s should have made the playoffs at least once, but they were penalized by the lack of divisions until '69, and we don't really need to revisit that year. The '84 team came the closest, closer than last year's, but they weren't a truly great team (though both they and the '89 team led the league in wins, which is interesting.)
I guess my point is that we haven't really suffered with the Red Sox. They made the World Series four times. They had their own demons that go back to Bucky Dent and the Yankees. Let's face it, the Cubs have just been bad most of the time. The Cubs are really more like the Indians; lots of bad teams with a couple good ones here and there. It's just that the Indians strung their good seasons together in the late-'90s. (By the way, go to Baseball Reference, look at the '95 Indians page, and tell me how that team did not win the World Series that year. It was far and away superior to the '97 team that was two outs away.) The Tribe hasn't won a Series since '48, but at least they've been recently.
I don't really attach too much significance to the fact that the Cubs haven't been to the Series since 1945. That really doesn't bother me that much, because even if, say, the '84 team had beaten the Padres, it is doubtful that they would have beaten the Tigers, who were a force that year. Would it make things better if, right now, it would be only 20 years since the Cubs won a pennant? No, because we'd still be 96 years without a championship. It is somewhat remarkable that it's been 59 years, but the Cubs have only had four opportunities to even win it through the playoff system introduced in '69; you can count on one hand the years between '46 and '68 when they legitimately had a shot at the pennant (I'd say '46, '67 and '68 are it; '52 was the only year in the '50s where they were even as good as .500). Moreover, I would rather they not win the pennant than win it and lose in the World Series. If that happens, you start to get a complex about it, just like Red Sox fans had. That's why, when (and notice I said when, not if) the Cubs win the Series, which hopefully will be next October, they need to just march through the whole damn thing and kick some ass. The Diamondbacks did it, the Angels did it, the Marlins have done it twice, and the Cubs are certainly capable of doing it. And for the record, there is no curse, but that's a topic for another day.
The White Sox really have it worse off than the Cubs do. Their fans don't even like their team half the time, they play their home games in an antiseptic park on the South Side, nestled between train tracks and a traffic-clogged expressway, their owner is despised, and they have worn some of the worst uniforms in baseball history. They haven't been to the Series since '59 and they haven't won it since 1917. The one thing I am genuinely scared of is the White Sox winning the Series before the Cubs do (or, God forbid, if they beat the Cubs to do it). A Cubs-Red Sox used to be a dream World Series; now most people would like to see a Cubs-White Sox series, but not me. This city would burn down no matter who won; this city takes its baseball more seriously than any other city. (By the way, it always bugs me when people call St. Louis such a great baseball city. You know why they love the Cardinals? Because they have to live in St. Louis! If you've ever been there, which I have, you've seen that there is nothing else to do there, especially in the summer. Plus they let the Browns move to Baltimore in '54.)
The whole Cubs-White Sox dichotomy is another reason why it's somethimes it's tougher to be a Cubs fan in Chicago. With the Red Sox, the only people who wanted to see them lose were Yankee fans, but that was more along the lines of Yankee fans regarding the Red Sox as a nuisance, not a threat. But with the Cubs, we have to deal with genuine contempt and hate from White Sox fans. I think that's why fans are so cynical about the Cubs here; we have to deal with White Sox fans who would almost rather see the Cubs fail than their own team win. This may sound hard to believe, but it's true. And that's why that writer's little brother comparison to the White Sox was so apt. The White Sox really would have been better off had they just moved to Florida back in 1990 when they had the chance, because Chicago was, is, and always will be a Cubs town.
I know I have more to say on this topic, but I can't think of it right now, and I need to make my Week 8 NFL picks. I don't think I actually have any readers anymore, but if anyone is out there, here they are.
San Francisco (+1 1/2) over CHICAGO; San Fran
*I can't pick the Bears right now, plus I might start Tim Rattay this week on my fantasy team.
Green Bay (-2) over WASHINGTON; Green Bay
* Besides actually thinking that the Packers will win, I have another reason for this pick: as many are aware by now, since 1940 the result of the Redskins last home game before the election has been an accurate predictor of the victor; if the Redskins win, the incumbent party stays in the White House, and if they lose, so does the incumbent party. I'm voting for Kerry, and thus I'm rooting for the Packers on Sunday.
PHILADELPHIA (-7 1/2) over Buffalo; Philly
* Though the Eagles failed to cover last week, Buffalo can't hang with them.
MINNESOTA (-7) over NY Giants; Minnesota
* With or without Randy Moss, the Vikings are looking very tough to beat right now (of course, we've seen this before...).
TENNESSEE (-3) over Cincinnati; Tennessee
* I flirted with picking the Bengals, but Steve McNair will probably have to be dead to not play, plus the Titans are better on both sides of the ball. I think.
Indianapolis (-1) over KANSAS CITY; Indy
* This would be the lock of the week were it not so easy to predict.
Detroit (+3) over DALLAS; Detroit
* I can't believe the oddsmakers keep favoring the Cowboys. I refer you and them to my rule about the Cowboys: never bet on a team with a 40-year-old Vinny Testaverde prominently involved.
Jacksonville (+1) over HOUSTON; Jax
* The Jags would be the team of destiny this year were they not in the same conference as the Patriots.
Atlanta (+7) over DENVER; Denver
* After the Broncos laid an egg in Cincy on Monday, I have no idea what to make of them, but I don't think Falcons can actually win the game. I would just be happy just to see Warick Dunn score three touchdowns, personally.
SEATTLE (-8) over Carolina; Seattle
* It's put-up-or-shut-up time for the Seahawks; if they can't beat the Panthers, who come in without any semblance of a running game, at home, they deserve what they get.
New England (-3) over PITTSBURGH; NE
* I'm riding the undefeated train until it derails, whenever that may be.
SAN DIEGO (-6) over Oakland; SD
* Do you believe in the Bolts? They're looking better and better every week.
Miami (+7) over NY JETS; Jets
* The Dolphins, to their credit, don't quit, and after smoking the Rams last week, I think they'll keep it close in a loss.
And the lock of the week...
Arizona (+3) over BUFFALO; Arizona
* Dennis Green knows what he's doing, and the Cards' defense forces a ton of turnovers, which is always bad when Drew Bledsoe is your quarterback.
I'm genuinely happy for all the long-suffering Red Sox fans out there, especially the ones who endured '46, '48, '67, '75, and '86. Those who are my age never really suffered enough; I barely recall the '89 NLCS myself, and I was eight years old. I am happy for Bill Simmons, aka the Sports Guy, whom I have been reading since 1998, way back when he could only be found on the Digital City Boston section of AOL. His readership was measured in the hundreds and he personally returned e-mails within about two hours because he had nothing better to do. But he and his father deserve this one, no doubt about it.
And in that same link is an e-mail he was sent by a Cubs fan, which I will copy here:
"For Cubs fans, you know what this feels like? I just figured it out a moment ago. It's like having this friend who suffered with you through thick and thin, sharing in your deepest pain and your greatest hopes. Finally, one day, your friend finally gets what you've both been hoping for. And you're really, really happy for them, but you can't deny that you're also jealous. And you're a bit sad, and a bit scared, because you know that from now on, you're going at it alone. (Also, you have an annoying little brother with the same problem, but nobody gives a crap about him and neither do you.)"
Of all the e-mails he posted from Cub fans, this is the one that is closest to how I think the Cubs fit into everything. First of all, I have never equated the Red Sox and Cubs in terms of their failures. Boston had lost four straight seven-game World Series before they won, all of which have occurred since the Cubs were in their last Series. The Red Sox have usually put decent teams on the field, whereas the Cubs have, more often than not, been just downright bad for the past 59 years (dating back to '45, their last Series appearance). I mean, the Cubs just this year posted back-to-back winning seasons for the first time since '72 and '73. That's downright incredible when you think about it. They've never really had a legitimate chance to win a World Series because their good teams were always one-year flukes, for the most part; the team of the late-'60s should have made the playoffs at least once, but they were penalized by the lack of divisions until '69, and we don't really need to revisit that year. The '84 team came the closest, closer than last year's, but they weren't a truly great team (though both they and the '89 team led the league in wins, which is interesting.)
I guess my point is that we haven't really suffered with the Red Sox. They made the World Series four times. They had their own demons that go back to Bucky Dent and the Yankees. Let's face it, the Cubs have just been bad most of the time. The Cubs are really more like the Indians; lots of bad teams with a couple good ones here and there. It's just that the Indians strung their good seasons together in the late-'90s. (By the way, go to Baseball Reference, look at the '95 Indians page, and tell me how that team did not win the World Series that year. It was far and away superior to the '97 team that was two outs away.) The Tribe hasn't won a Series since '48, but at least they've been recently.
I don't really attach too much significance to the fact that the Cubs haven't been to the Series since 1945. That really doesn't bother me that much, because even if, say, the '84 team had beaten the Padres, it is doubtful that they would have beaten the Tigers, who were a force that year. Would it make things better if, right now, it would be only 20 years since the Cubs won a pennant? No, because we'd still be 96 years without a championship. It is somewhat remarkable that it's been 59 years, but the Cubs have only had four opportunities to even win it through the playoff system introduced in '69; you can count on one hand the years between '46 and '68 when they legitimately had a shot at the pennant (I'd say '46, '67 and '68 are it; '52 was the only year in the '50s where they were even as good as .500). Moreover, I would rather they not win the pennant than win it and lose in the World Series. If that happens, you start to get a complex about it, just like Red Sox fans had. That's why, when (and notice I said when, not if) the Cubs win the Series, which hopefully will be next October, they need to just march through the whole damn thing and kick some ass. The Diamondbacks did it, the Angels did it, the Marlins have done it twice, and the Cubs are certainly capable of doing it. And for the record, there is no curse, but that's a topic for another day.
The White Sox really have it worse off than the Cubs do. Their fans don't even like their team half the time, they play their home games in an antiseptic park on the South Side, nestled between train tracks and a traffic-clogged expressway, their owner is despised, and they have worn some of the worst uniforms in baseball history. They haven't been to the Series since '59 and they haven't won it since 1917. The one thing I am genuinely scared of is the White Sox winning the Series before the Cubs do (or, God forbid, if they beat the Cubs to do it). A Cubs-Red Sox used to be a dream World Series; now most people would like to see a Cubs-White Sox series, but not me. This city would burn down no matter who won; this city takes its baseball more seriously than any other city. (By the way, it always bugs me when people call St. Louis such a great baseball city. You know why they love the Cardinals? Because they have to live in St. Louis! If you've ever been there, which I have, you've seen that there is nothing else to do there, especially in the summer. Plus they let the Browns move to Baltimore in '54.)
The whole Cubs-White Sox dichotomy is another reason why it's somethimes it's tougher to be a Cubs fan in Chicago. With the Red Sox, the only people who wanted to see them lose were Yankee fans, but that was more along the lines of Yankee fans regarding the Red Sox as a nuisance, not a threat. But with the Cubs, we have to deal with genuine contempt and hate from White Sox fans. I think that's why fans are so cynical about the Cubs here; we have to deal with White Sox fans who would almost rather see the Cubs fail than their own team win. This may sound hard to believe, but it's true. And that's why that writer's little brother comparison to the White Sox was so apt. The White Sox really would have been better off had they just moved to Florida back in 1990 when they had the chance, because Chicago was, is, and always will be a Cubs town.
I know I have more to say on this topic, but I can't think of it right now, and I need to make my Week 8 NFL picks. I don't think I actually have any readers anymore, but if anyone is out there, here they are.
San Francisco (+1 1/2) over CHICAGO; San Fran
*I can't pick the Bears right now, plus I might start Tim Rattay this week on my fantasy team.
Green Bay (-2) over WASHINGTON; Green Bay
* Besides actually thinking that the Packers will win, I have another reason for this pick: as many are aware by now, since 1940 the result of the Redskins last home game before the election has been an accurate predictor of the victor; if the Redskins win, the incumbent party stays in the White House, and if they lose, so does the incumbent party. I'm voting for Kerry, and thus I'm rooting for the Packers on Sunday.
PHILADELPHIA (-7 1/2) over Buffalo; Philly
* Though the Eagles failed to cover last week, Buffalo can't hang with them.
MINNESOTA (-7) over NY Giants; Minnesota
* With or without Randy Moss, the Vikings are looking very tough to beat right now (of course, we've seen this before...).
TENNESSEE (-3) over Cincinnati; Tennessee
* I flirted with picking the Bengals, but Steve McNair will probably have to be dead to not play, plus the Titans are better on both sides of the ball. I think.
Indianapolis (-1) over KANSAS CITY; Indy
* This would be the lock of the week were it not so easy to predict.
Detroit (+3) over DALLAS; Detroit
* I can't believe the oddsmakers keep favoring the Cowboys. I refer you and them to my rule about the Cowboys: never bet on a team with a 40-year-old Vinny Testaverde prominently involved.
Jacksonville (+1) over HOUSTON; Jax
* The Jags would be the team of destiny this year were they not in the same conference as the Patriots.
Atlanta (+7) over DENVER; Denver
* After the Broncos laid an egg in Cincy on Monday, I have no idea what to make of them, but I don't think Falcons can actually win the game. I would just be happy just to see Warick Dunn score three touchdowns, personally.
SEATTLE (-8) over Carolina; Seattle
* It's put-up-or-shut-up time for the Seahawks; if they can't beat the Panthers, who come in without any semblance of a running game, at home, they deserve what they get.
New England (-3) over PITTSBURGH; NE
* I'm riding the undefeated train until it derails, whenever that may be.
SAN DIEGO (-6) over Oakland; SD
* Do you believe in the Bolts? They're looking better and better every week.
Miami (+7) over NY JETS; Jets
* The Dolphins, to their credit, don't quit, and after smoking the Rams last week, I think they'll keep it close in a loss.
And the lock of the week...
Arizona (+3) over BUFFALO; Arizona
* Dennis Green knows what he's doing, and the Cards' defense forces a ton of turnovers, which is always bad when Drew Bledsoe is your quarterback.
posted by Matt @ 2:01 PM
<< Home