Jump to content

Talk:Chicago Cubs

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vikes517 (talk | contribs) at 22:52, 26 March 2007 (Cubs Roster). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconBaseball Start‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball
StartThis article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Clutter

Does anyone else think that the current page (11/28/06) looks very cluttered?

Moving certain sections to subpages usually consolidates an article. Like the Chicago Bears article. --ShadowJester07 22:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An article about a sports franchise is not a place to promote or provide links to a gay agenda.

If someone added an chapter about 2,000 Luthern League Youth attending a game to promote their pride, my comment would be the same.

Will Ohman

Is Will Ohman really German?? I konw he was born in West Germany, but I would assume on a miltiary base of some kind, if his father and/or mother worked in the military. He graduated high school in the states, so that could be a factor. So there fore should'nt he have the US flag next to his name similar to Tommy Phelps on the Milwaukee Brewers page.

I went to high school with Ohman in Parker, Colo. He was born on a military base, and his father is a pastor. He should have a U.S. flag.

    • It appears that Ohman's flag has been changed to the German flag. I can't find a good reference either way that says he was born as a German citizen or as a U.S. citizen in Germany. Anyone has a good reference for this? --Terryn3 17:02, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Baseball Register says he was born in West Germany. That's probably not his fault, though. The question is, what is the policy (if any) about the flags? He is almost certainly a U.S. citizen. Wahkeenah 17:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • If he is a naturalized U.S. citizen, I don't know, I can see both cases. But if he was born as the son of U.S. military personnel stationed in Germany, it would seem that the U.S. flag would be the only correct option. I've tried googling for a good bio on Ohman that gives enough history to clarify, without any luck. --Terryn3 18:42, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Hawk

If LaTroy Hawkins does for the Giants' bullpen what he did for that of my Twins and my Cubs, they are doomed for this year. No quantity of Barry Bonds home runs, no matter when he returns to the lineup, can rescue the "Jints". There is currently no major league park large enough to contain the rockets that opposing batters launch off Hawk's pitches. 65.54.155.58 02:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We need more pages!!!

I'm tired of seeing red everywhere!! We need create some more player/coach pages. I've created the Michael Wuertz, John Koronka, Jose Macias, Ryan Dempster (techically, since I wasn't registered when I created the Demspter page), Jason Dubois, Will Ohman, and Todd Wellemeyer, and Roberto Novoa pages and have moved and did significant editing to the Neifi Perez page. --CFIF 13:51, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

No question we need some quick blurbs on some of the Cubs greats from 100 years ago. I'll get on it when I have time. Wahkeenah 17:07, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No, I mean 25-man roster stuff, like Todd Wellemeyer, Todd Walker, etc., not people from 100 years ago. --CFIF 17:53, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

On other team's pages, people attend to this stuff regularly, even posting their current won-lost record and such. Apparently no one has time for it on the Cubs page. d:( Wahkeenah 23:46, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, usually, for these biographies, it's not practical to post career stats and win-loss records on the player bios, as that changes all the time.....--CFIF June 28, 2005 13:51 (UTC)

Jim Hendry article

Would there be any objections to a Jim Hendry article linked from this page? Billy Beane has an article and I would argue that Hendry is a more significant GM than Beane.

While I'm at it, neither Brian Cashman (NYY) nor Theo Epstein (BOS) have articles - and they're both certainly significant figures in baseball (Cashman for his success, and Epstein for his youthful success).

StJarvitude 7 July 2005 04:22 (UTC)

  • Makes sense to me. Though I don't think Hendry has had a book written about him, while Beane has. Jpers36 7 July 2005 06:54 (UTC)

Cubs-Astros pitching derby?

Has anyone ever heard of this or know anything about it? I've never heard of it and it's really confusing as to what it is refering to.

It's the product of the semi-fertile imagination of that character that has been posting the "Main Rivals" Point-of-View junk. Feel free to delete it. Wahkeenah 06:18, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Longest dry spell?

I'm not going to edit this article since I know little about baseball and would probably make a horrible mess of it, but this can't go unremarked:

It can't go without mention that the Cubs have the longest dry spell between championships in all of professional sports

No they don't. What about Preston North End F.C. in English football (soccer)? They won the Football League Championship in 1889-90, and have been in existence ever since without managing it again. Ditto Sheffield United F.C. (last championship 1897-98). Change the wording to "U. S. professional sports" and I'd agree. Loganberry (Talk) 23:33, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are sports outside the United States??? >:) Wahkeenah 00:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I edited it. I'm still not sure the wording 'longest dry spell between championships in all of [US] professional sports' is accurate. 'All of professional sports' is a wide range even if only confined to the US. johnsemlak 6 October 2005
I cleaned up the wording on that: The Cubs have the longest dry spell between championships in all of the five major U.S. sports leagues (MLB, NFL, NHL, NBA, MLS),... I removed that amaturish "It can't go without mention"; I mean, who is it that is actually saying this, and why must it be said? Weasel term if you ask me.--CrazyTalk 04:41, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be careful about that. Didn't the Cards go 1920-present without a major title win? Trekphiler 00:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you're referring to the football variety. The football Cardinals won a title in either 1947 or 1948, so they have won a major title. Patken4 01:07, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Chicago Cardinals won the NFL title (before there were any playoffs) in 1925, then won their division and the league championship in 1947. They also won their division in 1948. Hardly a man is now alive who remembers the last Cardinals championship, and that was nearly 40 years after the last Cubs championship. A sobering thought. d:( Wahkeenah 02:27, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cubs vs White Stockings

Can we be more clear with references to the team being called the 'Cubs' and 'White Stockings' in the history section? The names 'Cubs' and 'White Stockings' used unclearly or incorrectly several times in that section. johnsemlak 4 October 2005

In the 5th paragraph of the 'White Stockings' section, under History, the team is referred to as the 'Cubs'. Also, when was the team called the Colts? The notes at the top of the page say the 'Late 1890s'. Could we have precise dates?
I think the history section would benefit from clearer explaination of the names. E.g. 'The franchise was originally named the 'Chicago White Stockings' after.... It was renamed ... in 18XX after ....' Etc.
Also, the St. Louis Browns are referred to as an opponent in the old NL vs AA World Series in 1882. This is accurate, but the article says this team would become a 'periennial rival', without mentioning that this team would be renamed the Cardinals. While this might be obvious to some fans, I doubt a lot of readers would immediately catch this. johnsemlak 6 October 2005

Is this line really necessary?

"With the World Series triumphs of the 2004 Boston Red Sox (after 86 years) and the 2005 Chicago White Sox (after 88 years), the Cubs will be faced with even more pressure in 2006 to break their championship drought"

This is speculation -- I'm not really convinced it belongs there, but I'm not going to just delete it because as a Cubs fan I'm not happy with the inevitable comparisons with both Sox teams, so I don't want this to veer into my POV. Any thoughts? -- gavindow 02:02, 31 October 2005

It's rather too obvious to bother stating, I should think. However, if it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the Cubs-Sox rivalry article, not here. Wahkeenah 05:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll give this a couple more days, if there are no more comments, I'm going to edit both this article and the rivalry page. -- gavindow 03:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Best team ever?

I've heard the '06 Cubs called that; it's N clear to me if the intent was "best NBL" or "best Cubs". Clarify & include? Trekphiler 00:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Since they lost the '06 World Series, they can't be considered the "Best Ever", but they had the best regular season ever, percentagewise, in modern baseball. Several Yankees teams are the usual contenders for "best ever" when the Series is taken into account. Wahkeenah 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Took me a minute to figure out you were talking about the 1906 Cubs, not the 2006 Cubs (emphatically NOT the best team ever...) Mrquizzical 22:27, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holy Cow

How is there a Cubbies article with no reference made to Harry Caray, let alone Stoney? User:199.44.251.2 03:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HOF List

Dizzy Dean had a legendary Pitching Performance in the World Series as a Cub.

Ford Frick award winners Harey Carey and Jack Brickhouse should be added to this list, while they are not "In the Hall" Per Se, they are referred to as "Hall of Fame Broadcaster..."

Ticket System

I have been searching the internet without any success as to how tickets are released. I have been checking the Cubs calendar for tickets for their home games and it seems like a week or so before a game, the Cubs release a set of tickets to the higher-priced sections, usually only having 1 or 2 contiguous seats available. Does anybody know the system that is used for releasing tickets?

Also, is there any way to find out what seats are actually available? It's a pain to go through the online ticketing and have to check every seating section for the tickets that the computer finds to be the "best". I'd much rather like to see a chart of wrigley field with indicators showing where available seats are located. It puzzles me as to why they have not set up such a system yet.

I'm actually going to e-mail someone from the Cubs organization to see if I can't find the answer to at least one of my questions. Dav2008 01:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I sent them an e-mail and they basically said what I suspected originally. They said your best bet is to check tickets about a week before a game since that's when they begin to release them. Dav2008 16:33, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everyone like the Cubs?

They aren't exactly the best team in MLB. The last time they won a World Series was before Arizona and New Mexico were part of the county. User:Jetpackfireman 11:00 pm, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Simple, the Cubs are the Greatest Franchise in Chicago, they always were, and awlays will be ;-). (I posted a more logical awnser on your talk page). ShadowJester07 04:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with liking the Cubs, I was just curious why they are the most popular team in Chicago. I myself do not like the Cubs. User:Jetpackfireman 5:28 pm, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Many of their games have been on WGN, which goes national on cable, for a while (like the Braves). Their home games are usually played during the day (no competition of other teams). They play in a very famous stadium. They are from a major city. There are many reasons why. Patken4 14:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't always true. In the early 1960s, the White Sox were a much better team and easily outdrew the Cubs. The turnaround started when WGN went to cable and to national TV, and the Sox (who had once been as much a part of WGN TV as the Cubs) made the ill-fated decision to switch to a local TV station that was carried only on area cable rather than national cable. That, coupled with the purchase of the Cubs by WGN's owner, the Tribune Company, vaulted the Cubs well ahead of the White Sox in terms of "fan interest", which is probably a little more truthful than saying that everyone "likes" the Cubs. Exposure, not necessarily team success, is what made the difference... although, if the Cubs had not had some occasional success under the Tribune Company, as they have, and which had been thoroughly lacking in the P.K. Wrigley years, maybe things would have turned out differently. Now the that Sox are tough again, and if the Cubs continue to flounder, and since WGN carries a notable number of Sox games, and fewer Cubs games than they used to, it will be interesting to see if fan interest shifts a bit. People do get tired of losers eventually. The citizens of Chicago would take issue with that, but a lot of folks in the outland might not be such die-hards. Wahkeenah 15:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with that for the reason the Cubs are more popular in Chicago currently. I thought Jetpack was asking about the Cubs national following. Back in the 80's, if you lived in a town that wasn't close to a MLB team, you could watch pretty much every Cubs game on WGN (and most Braves games on WTBS and Mets games on WWOR) if you had cable. There were national tv games, but not like today. Because of that exposure, the Cubs gained more fans than teams that were better at that time because they were on tv.Patken4 19:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. And, oddly enough, this speaks to the vision of the much-maligned P.K. Wrigley. He allowed all the Cubs home games to be telecast on WGN, starting in the post-WWII era, and many said he was throwing money away. His reasoning was that constant availability of games would develop fan interest better than blackouts would. It might have cost him some revenue in the short run, but in the long term he was right on target... and WGN and the Tribune Company expanded that concept to the national level. Wahkeenah 19:52, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a Cubs fan because my older brother grew up watching Ryne Sandberg and listening to Harry Caray. If I had to guess, I'd say that most people are Cubs fans because of Caray. Bshbass 21:34, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Future Local Broadcasting Plans

Does anyone know what the plans are for local broadcasting of Cubs games in the Future? WGN is going to become some other network, and I'm not sure if the Tribune will still have ownership of it. ShadowJester07 04:52, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WGN's affiliation switch from The WB to The CW is expected to have no effect on its baseball telecasts. Lambertman 14:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Hilary Clinton is a Cubs fan ... or is she?

I took the role of editing the part of the article stating that the Former First Lady under the Clinton Administration was a Cubs fan, y'know, considering her betrayal when she was seen with a Yankees fan all of her life.

  • Politicians don't count, unless they were fans before they became politicians. For Ronald Reagan, it worked. For Hillary Clinton, I doubt it. However, if she only rooted for the Cubs and never for the Sox, then I suppose that counts for something. Wahkeenah 23:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That could work. However, like many politicians, I expect she just likes to be seen at events, whether she cares or not. Giuliani was a Yankees fan from youth, and he had to bite his tongue in 2000, since he had to remain officially neutral. It's also easy to be a Cubs fan and a Yankees fan, because then you're rooting from the sublime to the ridi... well, let's just say you're getting two different worlds. Wahkeenah 23:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gay fan count

Since Wrigley Field is located in a middle of a gay village, is it possible as to say as this team has the most homosexual fans. I mean this team occassionally helds a Gay Pride Day during one of it's games. (—The preceding unsigned comment was added by user:falconleaf)

Well, that fact is rather irrelevant to the article. Moreover, that claim is questionable - the Toronto Blue Jays along with several other Baseball franchises also host "Gay Pride days". --ShadowJester07 14:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the first comment was a "plant" by a Sox fan. Wahkeenah 22:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a duel fan of the Toronto Blue Jays and the Houston Astros, I'm just surprised that the majority of gay baseball fans like the Cubs Falconleaf
I thought they liked the Giants. Wahkeenah 00:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nope many like the Cubs, but I think it can vary on where your from. Falconleaf
I'm going to have to go with Wahkeenah, on this one, for the reason San Francisco has a higher percentage of gay men and lesbians than any other major U.S. city; versus Lake View, which is merely a neighborhood. --ShadowJester07 14:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
But not every gay and lesbian is in San Francisco, of couse the Giants themselves have a large LBGT following, but the Cubs in my opinion are more closely followed than the Giants, plus Chicago has mroe people than San Francisco. Probably the Cubs and Giants are probably tied, but I don't know you just have to rely on blogging and some articles on something like this. Falconleaf
I reckon you would have to find some statistics. Maybe stand outside Wrigley and ask everyone as they enter the park. That would be entertaining. Wahkeenah 23:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cap Anson

While I have no doubt that Cap Anson was a huge racist and a first-rate jerk, whether or not his views on race are "extreme" need to substantiated. Neither this page nor his bio at Cap Anson do so, so Anson is hereby upgraded from extreme racist to just racist awaiting substantiation. Terryn3 22:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe calling him an "extreme" racist was overkill, but there are degrees. Some bigots keep it to themselves, whereas Anson was very vocal about it, even for his generation. Maybe "outspoken" would be a better adjective. I'll ponder that. Wahkeenah 23:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cubs & Cards fan input requested

The article on the Cubs-Cardinal rivalry, I-55 Series has been nominated for Good Article status, and I would like to get some input on things that can improve the article. Being a Cards fan myself, I am very interested in maintaining an NPOV tone with fair consideration to both teams. Thanks! Agne 00:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

started discussion at Talk:I-55_Series, since I'm sure Cubs and Cards fans can discuss this together :)
--Spiffy sperry 23:47, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Day baseball

Until this article comes up with a section on how the Cubs refused to play night baseball for decades, it will remain a start-class article. --Buckboard 23:11, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

  • It's already covered. And it wasn't "the Cubs" who declined (not "refused") to play night ball, it was their owner, P.K. Wrigley. Once the Trib Company bought the team, they immediately began lobbying for night baseball. It just took 7 years of negotiations with the Chicago pols. Wahkeenah 23:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bad Ballpark?

Shouldn't there be some sort of disclaimer on this "bad ballpark" nonsense? Yes Wrigley is a hitters park (1.056 Park Factor according to ESPN), but so is Skydome or Great American Ballpark. Wrigley also is highly dependent on the wind. But all of this is somewhat irrelevent: during every single Cubs home game, the opposing team is playing under the same conditions. If its so easy to bank hits off the left field wall, then just tell the bloody Cubs to HIT IT OVER THE WALL THEMSELVES. The pennant isn't decided by examining (Runs Scored - Runs Allowed) over 162 games, its decided on who wins more individual contests. And that doesn't make a lick of difference when it comes to the ballpark design: just field a team that can win in your home stadium and opposing stadiums with longer left field walls, and the World Series can return to Chicago's north side.

Pre-1900

The pennants won before 1900 still count, and the World Series events of the 1880s were considered World's Championships by their participants. Arguably, 1903 was an exhibition Series also. Wahkeenah 12:53, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Cubs gave up home field advantage in 1984?

Someone wrote in this article that the Cubs were supposed to have home field advantage in the 1984 NLCS but that they gave it up. I know that back in those days, home field advantage in the LCS alternated between divisions. The NL West Atlanta Braves had home field over the St. Louis Cardinals in 1982. The NL East Philadelphia Phillies had home field against the Los Angeles Dodgers in 1983. I'm pretty sure that the Padres were scheduled to have home field in 1984; it should have been the west's turn. Can someone cite a source here to prove that the Cubs willingly gave up having home field advantage in 1984?Politician818 02:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think you're right, and I don't recall the Cubs "giving up" home field in 1984, in fact the teams don't have a choice about the post-season schedule, it's run by the Commissioner's Office. Feel free to remove that bogus info, and someone can add it (or the correct info) back when or if they cite a source. Wahkeenah 11:56, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it was the West's turn to have HFA in the NL that year. I think you're thinking of the World Series - the Cubs would have had to open in Detroit. 71.114.210.202 18:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleacher bums

Perhaps i'm dating myself, but when I lived in Chicago there was a group they called the blecaher bums. There was even a play about them. I don't know enough about it, but I feel loike that should be in the article. Or do other baseball teams also use the term "bleacher bums". --HitTheRoad 04:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retired numbers

Should someone change the retired numbers on the page like other MLB pages have been doing latley? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Upabove21 (talk • contribs) 00:15, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Quick Facts Section

Is there really a point to the "Quick Facts" section? It does not really contribute to the article, since it's buried by several paragraphs by text, and contains information that is located throughout the article --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  00:38, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to replace {{flagicon|USA...}} calls

Notice: There is currently a proposal to change calls {{flagicon|USA..}} to {{USA|..}} at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Flag_Template#Changing_USA_flag_calls. Please consider posting there to keep the discussion in one place. (SEWilco 04:47, 8 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Discussion at MoS on flag icons

Please contribute to the discussion on flag icons at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Flag icons - manual of style entry?. (SEWilco 14:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

New Outfits?

Judging by some footage and photos from the Cubs' training camp, the team has a new uniform. The cap has been redesigned to have a white C logo as opposed to the traditional red one, and has red half circles above the players' ears. Also, The sides of the jerseys have red and white stripes. See image here Way to screw up a perfectly good uniform --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  04:02, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The new uniform is the batting practice uniform. This will replace the old navy blue BP jerseys and caps. They will only be worn during games for spring training. Also... never ever call a sports jersey an "outfit" haha... —Fumo7887 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Totals

At the bottom of their all-time season record, it gives a total of 9,866 wins and 9,398 losses for a winning percentage of .512. However, actually adding the numbers gives 9,896 wins and 9,393 losses for .513. Please advise. 71.102.156.213 19:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cubs Roster

Why would yall mess up the roster that i had updated. thats gay it took me a while to update that roster to and yall just screwed it up. If your goin to take mine off at least update the roster that you put on there. THAT'S GAY!

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chicago_Cubs&oldid=118120857"