Cubs Fans, Worried Yet?

[Dr. Blackheart]

What's going on with Almora's left hand?

Kris Bryant is having a bad hair day, too.

[Jockey]

What's going on with Almora's left hand?

Got a little grin on his face as well.

[MU82]

I'm delighted at this turn of Cub events.

For I am a St. Louis Cardinal fan.

We know the Cubs because our team has been playing the small and inadequate bears for more than 100 years. We know that for every flash of brilliance in Wrigley Field, there will be decades of futility.

We respect the Ricketts family because they're trying to bring the Cardinal Way to Wrigley Field. But we inevitably know that despite the family's best efforts, the Cubs will continue to be the Cubs.

In St. Louis, we know that at 36-40, the Cardinals are having a crappy year. That's true even though we're well within hailing distance of the NL Central Lead. Four games out and we're talking about firing our Manager and General Manager (and probably the head of player personnel).

Some think we're spoiled and that we're not true fans because we don't support our team through futility, like Cub Fans do. But folks, understand that we're demanding fans. We expect to win. We tolerate losing, but we do so with the expectation that our team and our players (yes, even though we don't own the team, we see them as "our" players) will do their best to win and that losing is not a permanent part of Cardinal lore.

As a person with no horse in the race - not a fan of any MLB team, nor a hater of any MLB team - I don't think Cardinals fans are in a position to gloat here.

The Cubs kicked their butts in the 2015 playoffs, and then the Cubs won the 2016 World Series. Plus, just about any objective baseball observer still thinks the Cubs have more going for them as an organization than the Cardinals do (better young talent, better farm system, more money available to spend, etc). Sports is the ultimate "what have you done for me lately?" deal.

So you certainly are free to think the Cardinals have some kind of edge over the Cubs because of history, but what happened in 2011 or 1982 or 1967 doesn't have much relevance now. Not a single Cub or a single Cardinal were alive in 1967, and only a handful were even alive in 1982.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

As a Cubs fan I am more annoyed and frustrated than worried. Bryant sprained his ankle tonight so add him to the list of the walking wounded.

The saving grace is the NL Central sucks and I still fully expect the Cubs to win the division. The Nats and Dodgers will be the favorites heading into the playoffs and rightfully so. But all you've got to do is get there and then anything can happen.

[wadesworld]

As a person with no horse in the race - not a fan of any MLB team, nor a hater of any MLB team - I don't think Cardinals fans are in a position to gloat here.

The Cubs kicked their butts in the 2015 playoffs, and then the Cubs won the 2016 World Series. Plus, just about any objective baseball observer still thinks the Cubs have more going for them as an organization than the Cardinals do (better young talent, better farm system, more money available to spend, etc). Sports is the ultimate "what have you done for me lately?" deal.

So you certainly are free to think the Cardinals have some kind of edge over the Cubs because of history, but what happened in 2011 or 1982 or 1967 doesn't have much relevance now. Not a single Cub or a single Cardinal were alive in 1967, and only a handful were even alive in 1982.

As a Brewers fan I totally disagree.  Sure, the Cubs have had better seasons the last 2 years.  But the Cardinals are head and shoulders the better organization.  It'd be like saying Providence is a better basketball program than Marquette because the last 2 years they've been the better team.  Sure, but the complete and total domination not just head to head but overall by Marquette as a program vs. Providence as a program both in the more recent (last decade?) past and the overall history of the programs is so far in Marquette's favor it's not even close.

[dgies9156]

As a person with no horse in the race - not a fan of any MLB team, nor a hater of any MLB team - I don't think Cardinals fans are in a position to gloat here.

The Cubs kicked their butts in the 2015 playoffs, and then the Cubs won the 2016 World Series. Plus, just about any objective baseball observer still thinks the Cubs have more going for them as an organization than the Cardinals do (better young talent, better farm system, more money available to spend, etc). Sports is the ultimate "what have you done for me lately?" deal.

So you certainly are free to think the Cardinals have some kind of edge over the Cubs because of history, but what happened in 2011 or 1982 or 1967 doesn't have much relevance now. Not a single Cub or a single Cardinal were alive in 1967, and only a handful were even alive in 1982.

Other than to give me a nostalga buzz, I agree with you on 1967, 1982, 2011 or any number of other Cardinals World Championships.

But I have listened to enough Cub fans blow crap because we won't put up with losing. We're not loyal, they tell me. Not true baseball fans. But the measure of the organization is the will to win consistently and to make every effort to put the best product you can on the field. That, my friends, is the Cardinal Way.

Why does it matter. Because you could put the West Allis Little League intramural squad on the field at Wrigley and draw 35,000. But when the Cardinals suck and the team gives up, there aren't 1,000 people there. Expecting an organization that respects the fan, puts a quality product on the field and then retools and repairs when things don't happen is the Cardinal way.

Until the Ricketts adopted the Cardinal Way for their own hapless franchise, the small bears were willing to clip coupons, throw open the gates and invite 35,000 to a show the local Little League could beat. So while I do have a warm spot for true, long-suffering Cub fans, I take this notion of a dynasty in the same vein as I do the Hillbilly's promise to stay at Marquette as long as we would have him.

[wadesworld]

Other than to give me a nostalga buzz, I agree with you on 1967, 1982, 2011 or any number of other Cardinals World Championships.

But I have listened to enough Cub fans blow crap because we won't put up with losing. We're not loyal, they tell me. Not true baseball fans. But the measure of the organization is the will to win consistently and to make every effort to put the best product you can on the field. That, my friends, is the Cardinal Way.

Why does it matter. Because you could put the West Allis Little League intramural squad on the field at Wrigley and draw 35,000. But when the Cardinals suck and the team gives up, there aren't 1,000 people there. Expecting an organization that respects the fan, puts a quality product on the field and then retools and repairs when things don't happen is the Cardinal way.

Until the Ricketts adopted the Cardinal Way for their own hapless franchise, the small bears were willing to clip coupons, throw open the gates and invite 35,000 to a show the local Little League could beat. So while I do have a warm spot for true, long-suffering Cub fans, I take this notion of a dynasty in the same vein as I do the Hillbilly's promise to stay at Marquette as long as we would have him.

Nah.  The Cardinal way is b!tching about opponents admiring their home runs when you have this dude on your team:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcAnpC-U6gU

Speaking of that dude, the Cardinal way is roiding up like no other, along with Mac and many more.

The Cardinal way is driving drunk.

And stealing other organization's files.

And then pretending everything you do is perfect and nobody can live up to your moral standards.

THAT is the Cardinal way.

[Anti-Dentite]

The Cardinal way is living in fantasy world where they are the Yankees of the National League when in fact they are nowhere close. Pathetic excuse for a dynasty.

[wadesworld]

The Cardinal way is living in fantasy world where they are the Yankees of the National League when in fact they are nowhere close. Pathetic excuse for a dynasty.

Well it's either them or the Giants.

[MU82]

As a Brewers fan I totally disagree.  Sure, the Cubs have had better seasons the last 2 years.  But the Cardinals are head and shoulders the better organization.  It'd be like saying Providence is a better basketball program than Marquette because the last 2 years they've been the better team.  Sure, but the complete and total domination not just head to head but overall by Marquette as a program vs. Providence as a program both in the more recent (last decade?) past and the overall history of the programs is so far in Marquette's favor it's not even close.

Recent years - and the future - are all that matters. The Cubs have had the better of it recently and most baseball observers seem to believe the Cubs are very well positioned for the future. Many believe that Theo is doing in Chicago exactly what he did in Boston - setting up the franchise for many years of being solid contenders.

Hey, I was as skeptical as anybody, having lived in Chicago for 16 years and having witnessed "this time it's different" many times in Cubbieland - only to see it was never different. But now it really IS different. For the first time in more than a century, they have something every other team in baseball wants!

Rather than your Providence/Marquette analogy, I'll counter with a baseball analogy: Were the Yankees a "better organization" than the Cardinals in 1966 because the Yankees had been a dynasty for decades ending in 1964? For that matter, are the Giants a "better organization" now than the Cubs are? If so, where's the proof?

Your defense of the Cardinals is funny given that just a couple of posts later you attack "the Cardinal way." (And I agree with most of your points.) I guess you simply hate the Cubs that much.

The advantage I have over others in these kinds of debates is that I literally don't give a crap who wins and who loses. If the Cubs finish first or last, the Brewers finish first or last or the Cardinals finish first or last ... none of it is skin off my teeth. I am the ultimate "objective observer" in baseball discussions because I have absolutely no horse in the race. I just like baseball and have followed it closely for 40+ years.

[GGGG]

Other than to give me a nostalga buzz, I agree with you on 1967, 1982, 2011 or any number of other Cardinals World Championships.

But I have listened to enough Cub fans blow crap because we won't put up with losing. We're not loyal, they tell me. Not true baseball fans. But the measure of the organization is the will to win consistently and to make every effort to put the best product you can on the field. That, my friends, is the Cardinal Way.

Why does it matter. Because you could put the West Allis Little League intramural squad on the field at Wrigley and draw 35,000. But when the Cardinals suck and the team gives up, there aren't 1,000 people there. Expecting an organization that respects the fan, puts a quality product on the field and then retools and repairs when things don't happen is the Cardinal way.

Until the Ricketts adopted the Cardinal Way for their own hapless franchise, the small bears were willing to clip coupons, throw open the gates and invite 35,000 to a show the local Little League could beat. So while I do have a warm spot for true, long-suffering Cub fans, I take this notion of a dynasty in the same vein as I do the Hillbilly's promise to stay at Marquette as long as we would have him.

Cardinals are the best team in the National League.

But the bullsh*t above is why I hope Busch Stadium is the site of a nuclear accident.

[wadesworld]

Recent years - and the future - are all that matters. The Cubs have had the better of it recently and most baseball observers seem to believe the Cubs are very well positioned for the future. Many believe that Theo is doing in Chicago exactly what he did in Boston - setting up the franchise for many years of being solid contenders.

Hey, I was as skeptical as anybody, having lived in Chicago for 16 years and having witnessed "this time it's different" many times in Cubbieland - only to see it was never different. But now it really IS different. For the first time in more than a century, they have something every other team in baseball wants!

Rather than your Providence/Marquette analogy, I'll counter with a baseball analogy: Were the Yankees a "better organization" than the Cardinals in 1966 because the Yankees had been a dynasty for decades ending in 1964? For that matter, are the Giants a "better organization" now than the Cubs are? If so, where's the proof?

Your defense of the Cardinals is funny given that just a couple of posts later you attack "the Cardinal way." (And I agree with most of your points.) I guess you simply hate the Cubs that much.

The advantage I have over others in these kinds of debates is that I literally don't give a crap who wins and who loses. If the Cubs finish first or last, the Brewers finish first or last or the Cardinals finish first or last ... none of it is skin off my teeth. I am the ultimate "objective observer" in baseball discussions because I have absolutely no horse in the race. I just like baseball and have followed it closely for 40+ years.

I hate the Cardinals quite a bit more than I hate the Cubs.  For most my life the Cubs are one of the few organizations that have been nearly as irrelevant as the Brewers.  The Cardinals, however, have always been the team everyone was trying to catch.  Their fans, players, managers, and front office alike are by and large pompous d-bags.  But I'm not naïve enough to pretend that because one organization that has been more or less completely awful for over a century had 2 seasons where they were better than an organization that for decades has been the cream of the crop in the division they are suddenly a better organization.  They had 2 great years.  We are now half way through the season and they are a .500 team.  If they spend the next decade consistently competing for the division title and making WS runs while the Cardinals fall back to consistently missing the Playoffs then we can talk about the Cubs being a better organization that the Cardinals.  Until then it's not even close.

I was nearly 25 years away from being born in 1966 and I'm sure the game was very different, so I'm not certain I can really say who a better organization was back in the mid 60s.  But yes, the Giants are 100x the organization the Cubs are.  One bad year compared to one good year means very little in the grand scheme of things.  Maybe that's why those fan bases do become such pompous d bags.  Because when the Cubs finally win 1 WS title in 108 years they act like suddenly they're God's gift to baseball.  The Cubs over the last 3 years have been great.  They also were great in 2008 and 2 years later were last in the division.  They have a long, long way to go to compare to the Cardinals, or to the Giants.

Just because I call things for what they are doesn't mean it's blind Chicago hatred.  "Oh my gosh wadesworld, quit talking about Jay Cutler being bad, his arm is incredible, if he could just get an offensive coordinator to stay in place he'd be right up there with the best QBs in the league!  You're just such a blind Chicago hater if you can't see his only problem is the lack of a consistent system!"  (Oh wait, he's now calling football games from the booth).  "Oh my gosh wadesworld, you think that the Cubs winning the WS one time in the last 108 years doesn't make them the greatest organization in baseball!  Just blind hatred for all things Chicago obviously!"

No.  There's more to organizational success than 1 title.

[MerrittsMustache]

I hate the Cardinals quite a bit more than I hate the Cubs.  For most my life the Cubs are one of the few organizations that have been nearly as irrelevant as the Brewers.  The Cardinals, however, have always been the team everyone was trying to catch.  Their fans, players, managers, and front office alike are by and large pompous d-bags.  But I'm not naïve enough to pretend that because one organization that has been more or less completely awful for over a century had 2 seasons where they were better than an organization that for decades has been the cream of the crop in the division they are suddenly a better organization.  They had 2 great years.  We are now half way through the season and they are a .500 team.  If they spend the next decade consistently competing for the division title and making WS runs while the Cardinals fall back to consistently missing the Playoffs then we can talk about the Cubs being a better organization that the Cardinals.  Until then it's not even close.

I was nearly 25 years away from being born in 1966 and I'm sure the game was very different, so I'm not certain I can really say who a better organization was back in the mid 60s.  But yes, the Giants are 100x the organization the Cubs are.  One bad year compared to one good year means very little in the grand scheme of things.  Maybe that's why those fan bases do become such pompous d bags.  Because when the Cubs finally win 1 WS title in 108 years they act like suddenly they're God's gift to baseball.  The Cubs over the last 3 years have been great.  They also were great in 2008 and 2 years later were last in the division.  They have a long, long way to go to compare to the Cardinals, or to the Giants.

Just because I call things for what they are doesn't mean it's blind Chicago hatred.  "Oh my gosh wadesworld, quit talking about Jay Cutler being bad, his arm is incredible, if he could just get an offensive coordinator to stay in place he'd be right up there with the best QBs in the league!  You're just such a blind Chicago hater if you can't see his only problem is the lack of a consistent system!"  (Oh wait, he's now calling football games from the booth).  "Oh my gosh wadesworld, you think that the Cubs winning the WS one time in the last 108 years doesn't make them the greatest organization in baseball!  Just blind hatred for all things Chicago obviously!"

No.  There's more to organizational success than 1 title.

If you had to bet your life on the Cubs, Giants or Cardinals being the best franchise (i.e. most wins, playoff appearances, pennants, championships, etc) over the next 5 years, which team would you pick?

[wadesworld]

If you had to bet your life on the Cubs, Giants or Cardinals being the best franchise (i.e. most wins, playoff appearances, pennants, championships, etc) over the next 5 years, which team would you pick?

I would put my money on none of those 3 organizations winning a World Series in the next 5 years.  And 5 (or 2) years after that, I won't remember, nor care, who had more Playoff appearances or overall wins.

But if I had to pick 1 team to have what I would say is the "most success" (legitimate chances to win a title) I'd say the Giants.

[🏀]

Nah.  The Cardinal way is b!tching about opponents admiring their home runs when you have this dude on your team:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcAnpC-U6gU

Speaking of that dude, the Cardinal way is roiding up like no other, along with Mac and many more.

The Cardinal way is driving drunk.

And stealing other organization's files.

And then pretending everything you do is perfect and nobody can live up to your moral standards.

THAT is the Cardinal way.

Well done, but don't forget about the racism.

[MU82]

I hate the Cardinals quite a bit more than I hate the Cubs.  For most my life the Cubs are one of the few organizations that have been nearly as irrelevant as the Brewers.  The Cardinals, however, have always been the team everyone was trying to catch.  Their fans, players, managers, and front office alike are by and large pompous d-bags.  But I'm not naïve enough to pretend that because one organization that has been more or less completely awful for over a century had 2 seasons where they were better than an organization that for decades has been the cream of the crop in the division they are suddenly a better organization.  They had 2 great years.  We are now half way through the season and they are a .500 team.  If they spend the next decade consistently competing for the division title and making WS runs while the Cardinals fall back to consistently missing the Playoffs then we can talk about the Cubs being a better organization that the Cardinals.  Until then it's not even close.

I was nearly 25 years away from being born in 1966 and I'm sure the game was very different, so I'm not certain I can really say who a better organization was back in the mid 60s.  But yes, the Giants are 100x the organization the Cubs are.  One bad year compared to one good year means very little in the grand scheme of things.  Maybe that's why those fan bases do become such pompous d bags.  Because when the Cubs finally win 1 WS title in 108 years they act like suddenly they're God's gift to baseball.  The Cubs over the last 3 years have been great.  They also were great in 2008 and 2 years later were last in the division.  They have a long, long way to go to compare to the Cardinals, or to the Giants.

Just because I call things for what they are doesn't mean it's blind Chicago hatred.  "Oh my gosh wadesworld, quit talking about Jay Cutler being bad, his arm is incredible, if he could just get an offensive coordinator to stay in place he'd be right up there with the best QBs in the league!  You're just such a blind Chicago hater if you can't see his only problem is the lack of a consistent system!"  (Oh wait, he's now calling football games from the booth).  "Oh my gosh wadesworld, you think that the Cubs winning the WS one time in the last 108 years doesn't make them the greatest organization in baseball!  Just blind hatred for all things Chicago obviously!"

No.  There's more to organizational success than 1 title.

Agreed to there being more to organizational success than 1 title.

The rest is merely your opinion, which you obviously are allowed to state.

The Steelers were a dynasty in the 1970s and the 49ers were a laughingstock. In 1978 and 1979, the Steelers went on to win two MORE Super Bowls while the 49ers went 2-14 each season. The 49ers had NEVER won a championship, and they won only two playoff games in their first 31 years as an NFL franchise.

Only an insane person would argue that there was any chance in hell that the 49ers would become the team of the '80s and the Steelers would fade to mediocrity.

That's sports. Things change. Even the Cubs win the World Series. Even the Cavs win the NBA title.

To argue that the Cardinals aren't just the better franchise but are "head and shoulders above" the team that has schooled them the last two seasons and seems to be better positioned for future success ... that doesn't make sense to me.

Even one year ago at this team, I might have nodded my head in agreement at "the Cubs are the Cubs are the Cubs." But, as the Red Sox showed in the aughts, winning one World Series can help transform a franchise. Will the Cubs do what the Red Sox did? We don't know. I am not claiming there are any guarantees. I just think your judgment is a little clouded here.

[wadesworld]

Agreed to there being more to organizational success than 1 title.

The rest is merely your opinion, which you obviously are allowed to state.

The Steelers were a dynasty in the 1970s and the 49ers were a laughingstock. In 1978 and 1979, the Steelers went on to win two MORE Super Bowls while the 49ers went 2-14 each season. The 49ers had NEVER won a championship, and they won only two playoff games in their first 31 years as an NFL franchise.

Only an insane person would argue that there was any chance in hell that the 49ers would become the team of the '80s and the Steelers would fade to mediocrity.

That's sports. Things change. Even the Cubs win the World Series. Even the Cavs win the NBA title.

To argue that the Cardinals aren't just the better franchise but are "head and shoulders above" the team that has schooled them the last two seasons and seems to be better positioned for future success ... that doesn't make sense to me.

Even one year ago at this team, I might have nodded my head in agreement at "the Cubs are the Cubs are the Cubs." But, as the Red Sox showed in the aughts, winning one World Series can help transform a franchise. Will the Cubs do what the Red Sox did? We don't know. I am not claiming there are any guarantees. I just think your judgment is a little clouded here.

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.  If the Cubs and the Cards had very similar histories in both the past decade and in the more distant past then sure, I think you could argue the Cubs are the better organization.  But the fact of the matter is the Cardinals won the division as recently as 2 years ago (something that I would put more stock in than a team winning the Wild Card, beating their division champion on the Divisional Round, and then losing in the Championship Round), won a World Series in the last decade, and are 4 years removed from their last World Series appearance.  Since 2000 they've made 12 Playoff appearances, won 2 World Series, and been in 2 other World Series.  Compare that to the Cubs who have 4 Playoff appearances, 1 World Series win, and no other WS appearances since 2000 and it's laughable to even consider the Cubs even remotely close to the Cardinals.  Again, if the Cubs go on to win 6 of the next 10 division titles and get another WS or 2 in there while the Cards are at best mediocre, sure, let's have the discussion.  Until the Cubs have 1 big season?  Come on.

[dgies9156]

Their fans, players, managers, and front office alike are by and large pompous d-bags.

I'm heartbroken!

Are we used to winning? Yes!

Do we scream when we don't? Yes!

As we all racist, homophobic, misogynist reactionaries who want society to go back to a "simpler" time. Heck no, we're not! And, I'll bet ya there's more than a few of the problems you  outline in every fan base.

We just simply want to win and demand excellence in return for our fandom. Our team knows that and provides what the market demands. They've done so for the most part since the 1980s and while we get frustrated when pennants don't fly, I will point out that we're regulars in the playoffs and World Series.

What I tried to say earlier was that Cub fans tend not to demand success. That's why their team was a loveable loser for so long and while, if winning gets expensive, expect ownership to slip back.

As to the d-bag comment. Were Marquette fans by-and-large pompous d-bags in the 1960s and 1970s as well? We demanded the same excellence from our team then that Cardinal fans demand now. There was the Marquette Way. Good defense, controlled offense and lots of thought into what we do. Good talent really helped.

[MerrittsMustache]

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.  If the Cubs and the Cards had very similar histories in both the past decade and in the more distant past then sure, I think you could argue the Cubs are the better organization.  But the fact of the matter is the Cardinals won the division as recently as 2 years ago (something that I would put more stock in than a team winning the Wild Card, beating their division champion on the Divisional Round, and then losing in the Championship Round), won a World Series in the last decade, and are 4 years removed from their last World Series appearance.  Since 2000 they've made 12 Playoff appearances, won 2 World Series, and been in 2 other World Series.  Compare that to the Cubs who have 4 Playoff appearances, 1 World Series win, and no other WS appearances since 2000 and it's laughable to even consider the Cubs even remotely close to the Cardinals.  Again, if the Cubs go on to win 6 of the next 10 division titles and get another WS or 2 in there while the Cards are at best mediocre, sure, let's have the discussion.  Until the Cubs have 1 big season?  Come on.

You put a lot of weight into the Cards' NL Central titles and postseason appearances, but a couple hours earlier when discussing team success, you stated that 2-5 years after the fact, you won't know or care about playoff appearances.

You also defined success as "legitimate chances to win a title" but claim that winning the division but losing in the Divisional Round is a better accomplishment than getting to the NLCS. So winning the division gives you a better chance to win a title than going to the WS as a Wild Card?

Your thoughts are all over the board here, wades.

[wadesworld]

You put a lot of weight into the Cards' NL Central titles and postseason appearances, but a couple hours earlier when discussing team success, you stated that 2-5 years after the fact, you won't know or care about playoff appearances.

You also defined success as "legitimate chances to win a title" but claim that winning the division but losing in the Divisional Round is a better accomplishment than getting to the NLCS. So winning the division gives you a better chance to win a title than going to the WS as a Wild Card?

Your thoughts are all over the board here, wades.

Wait, I must've missed it.  The Cubs actually beat the Mets in the 2015 NLCS?    No, they didn't.  They lost.  In my opinion, in a baseball series sometimes the better team doesn't win the series.  Unlike in basketball when the better team nearly always wins the series.  Over the course of a 162 game season if a team wins 100 games they're usually better than the rest of the teams in their division, but it doesn't mean that one of the other teams in their division can't get hot and win 3 out of 5 games.

But sure.  The Cubs are a better organization than the Cardinals.   

If we're talking since 2016?  We'll agree there.  ANY time prior to that?  It's beyond laughable.

[MerrittsMustache]

Wait, I must've missed it.  The Cubs actually beat the Mets in the 2015 NLCS?    No, they didn't.  They lost.  In my opinion, in a baseball series sometimes the better team doesn't win the series.  Unlike in basketball when the better team nearly always wins the series.  Over the course of a 162 game season if a team wins 100 games they're usually better than the rest of the teams in their division, but it doesn't mean that one of the other teams in their division can't get hot and win 3 out of 5 games.

But sure.  The Cubs are a better organization than the Cardinals.   

If we're talking since 2016?  We'll agree there.  ANY time prior to that?  It's beyond laughable.

I didn't say that the Cubs beat the Mets. My inference was that you thought winning the division was more of an accomplishment than making a run as a Wild Card.

Nothing else you wrote addressed my points. Also, despite your 5 smiley faces, I never said that the Cubs were a better organization than the Cardinals. My question was whether or not division titles and playoff appearances actually matter in terms of "success" or if only championships matter. You went both ways on that so I'm just trying to figure out if you have a stance or if you just go with whatever fits your narrative at the time.

[brewcity77]

Wait, I must've missed it.  The Cubs actually beat the Mets in the 2015 NLCS? 

No one said that. Your reading comprehension is lacking. His argument is that the Cubs got further than the Cards in 2015 and were thus closer to contending for the title. His further argument was that the team that goes further (thus the example of a WS participant from the WC) is closer to contending, and thus the WC's success can trump the division crown.

Personally, I don't care about the whole debate. I measure my teams by the standards they have set for me. The Bulls in the 1990s massively exceeded those expectations, and frankly, it was enough that even if they never contend again, I'm okay with that. I imagine any fans that are 25 or under have radically different hopes going forward. The Blackhawks this decade exceeded expectations after a lifetime (mine anyway) of futility. 3 Cups is good, I can live with that. The Cubs winning the Series, I'd love more, but if that's all they get, at least I saw it, and in the most dramatic fashion I can imagine.

Right now, the Cubs are certainly well-positioned for more. As much so if not more than any other team in the majors. They have multiple MVP candidates at various positions, tons of young talent still growing in the pipeline, and enough pitching and finances to ensure they can fill holes. If they become this decade's 1990s Braves, whatever, they still got the one. If they get more, all the better.

[wadesworld]

I didn't say that the Cubs beat the Mets. My inference was that you thought winning the division was more of an accomplishment than making a run as a Wild Card.

Nothing else you wrote addressed my points. Also, despite your 5 smiley faces, I never said that the Cubs were a better organization than the Cardinals. My question was whether or not division titles and playoff appearances actually matter in terms of "success" or if only championships matter. You went both ways on that so I'm just trying to figure out if you have a stance or if you just go with whatever fits your narrative at the time.

When the 2 teams play in the same division, yes, division titles is important in debating which organization is better.  When you're comparing the Giants (an NL West team) to the Cubs (an NL Central team) it means very little.  The NL Central leader is currently 2 games over .500.  The 3rd place team in the NL West is 13 games over .500.  Comparing how teams from different divisions did within their own division is pretty meaningless.  Comparing how teams within the same division did over the course of a 162 game season typically tells you something about those teams.

And the best part of this all is no matter how many different ways I went for "whatever my narrative at the time" is that the Cardinals (who I hate a lot more than the Cubs) completely dominate in any and all of those different ways.  So call it a narrative, call it pretty basic common sense, call it understanding the sport and success, call it hatred of Chicago, or call it whatever you want.  Saying the Cubs organization is better than the Cardinals organization in any way other than "since 2016" is beyond laughable.

[GGGG]

Whomever wins a division title in any given year has zero bearing on which "organization is better."  Determining which organization is better is based on a number of long-term factors:  resources, leadership, success at multiple levels, etc.  Winning a division is based on a short-term season.

Of course ultimately what matters is winning, but the better organizations will be the ones that win most over time.  So clearly the Cardinals have been the better organization historically.  But the Cubs have made major organizational changes that could allow them to over take the Cardinals in time.  Time will tell.  It's been done before.

[MUBurrow]

tl;dr. this is stupid. Per a 5 second wiki check:

Postwar World Series:
Cubs - 1; Cards - 5

Postwar Pennants -
Cubs - 1; Cards - 10

Postwar Division Titles:
Cubs - 6; Cards - 13

That said from today going forwrad I'd still rather own stock in the Cubs than the Cards because the Cubs are one of the most 10 marketable sports entities in the world.