MLB Playoffs

[wadesworld]

Are the Cincinnati Bengals a great franchise?

How about the Cleveland Cavaliers?

Tampa Bay Lightning? (They could be. I really don't know.)

[tower912]

In the 4 games so far this postseason, the home team has never held a lead.   

[MU B2002]

In the 4 games so far this postseason, the home team has never held a lead.

That ends tonight at about 9:55 EST.

[RushmoreAcademy]

I'm a lifelong Cubs fan and admit that they have not been a good franchise.   I don't feel the need to be offended because I'm just a fan... I don't have any say into how they run things.
That said, just because they have been terrible in the past, it doesn't mean I can't hope or even think that they are turning things around or even..... God forbid.... be a fan of them even if they are sorry.
So yes, the Cubs have sucked for a long time, but I'm thinking the next 5-10 could be damn good.

[wadesworld]

I'm a lifelong Cubs fan and admit that they have not been a good franchise.   I don't feel the need to be offended because I'm just a fan... I don't have any say into how they run things.
That said, just because they have been terrible in the past, it doesn't mean I can't hope or even think that they are turning things around or even..... God forbid.... be a fan of them even if they are sorry.
So yes, the Cubs have sucked for a long time, but I'm thinking the next 5-10 could be damn good.

Absolutely.  I'm not denying that in the least bit.  I hate that the Cubs look like they're poised to be really dang good for an extended period of time.

My point is that just because the future looks bright for the Cubs (and, hell, the present looks great too) doesn't mean that suddenly they aren't a sorry franchise.  If they have more seasons like this over the next decade (which I expect they will) that changes thing.  But having 1 good season, which, as of right now, is all they have done, doesn't change that.  Hell, they have been known as the "lovable losers."

[MerrittsMustache]

Absolutely.  I'm not denying that in the least bit.  I hate that the Cubs look like they're poised to be really dang good for an extended period of time.

My point is that just because the future looks bright for the Cubs (and, hell, the present looks great too) doesn't mean that suddenly they aren't a sorry franchise.  If they have more seasons like this over the next decade (which I expect they will) that changes thing.  But having 1 good season, which, as of right now, is all they have done, doesn't change that.  Hell, they have been known as the "lovable losers."

Only the Yankees, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants and Red Sox have better all-time winning percentages than the Cubs (.511). It's the nearly total lack of postseason success that has given the Cubs such a bad rap.

[wadesworld]

Only the Yankees, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants and Red Sox have better all-time winning percentages than the Cubs (.511). It's the nearly total lack of postseason success that has given the Cubs such a bad rap.

Fair enough, didn't realize that.  I guess that surprises me since they had so "few" post season appearances in such a long period of time.  Very surprising that only 6 teams have better all time winning percentages than a franchise only slightly over .500.

[JWags85]

Fair enough, didn't realize that.  I guess that surprises me since they had so "few" post season appearances in such a long period of time.  Very surprising that only 6 teams have better all time winning percentages than a franchise only slightly over .500.

I mean, hell, Cubs fans won't be thrilled with the 2000s up to this point, especially with the heartbreak of 2003, but they have 3 division titles in that time, even while playing in the same division as arguably the best team in baseball during that time.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Absolutely.  I'm not denying that in the least bit.  I hate that the Cubs look like they're poised to be really dang good for an extended period of time.

My point is that just because the future looks bright for the Cubs (and, hell, the present looks great too) doesn't mean that suddenly they aren't a sorry franchise.  If they have more seasons like this over the next decade (which I expect they will) that changes thing.  But having 1 good season, which, as of right now, is all they have done, doesn't change that.  Hell, they have been known as the "lovable losers."

I guess it's getting down to semantics.  They certainly have a lousy history based on postseason success but the franchise as it stands today is anything but lousy.  To me there is a distinct difference between the history and where the organization stands today. 

[wadesworld]

I guess it's getting down to semantics.  They certainly have a lousy history based on postseason success but the franchise as it stands today is anything but lousy.  To me there is a distinct difference between the history and where the organization stands today.

I don't disagree with this at all.

When they brought Theo in everything changed.

When I say that they are a "sorry franchise" I am looking at the history of the franchise.  The current team that they have is obviously not sorry, having won 97 games this season.  And their future does not look sorry, as it looks like their core will be together for a long time.

[MerrittsMustache]

Fair enough, didn't realize that.  I guess that surprises me since they had so "few" post season appearances in such a long period of time.  Very surprising that only 6 teams have better all time winning percentages than a franchise only slightly over .500.

Coming into this season, 17 teams were actually under .500 all-time.

[MerrittsMustache]

I guess it's getting down to semantics.  They certainly have a lousy history based on postseason success but the franchise as it stands today is anything but lousy. To me there is a distinct difference between the history and where the organization stands today.

In the opposite direction, see the 9-time World Champion Chicago Bears as an example of this.

[brandx]

Only the Yankees, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants and Red Sox have better all-time winning percentages than the Cubs (.511). It's the nearly total lack of postseason success that has given the Cubs such a bad rap.

Only if you include the 1800s-era Chicago White Stockings, Chicago Orphans, and Chicago Colts in with the record.

And the have only been over .500 in 12 of last 43 years. 19 of the last 70 years.

And, championships matter.


But, the future looks very bright. If they can bring in Price or Cueto, they will be looking at a long run.

[RushmoreAcademy]

If it's not sorry, it sure feels like it has been sorry.  Postseason success is everything.
Speaking of which... let's get it done tonight Lester.

[ChitownSpaceForRent]

Are the Cincinnati Bengals a great franchise?

How about the Cleveland Cavaliers?

Tampa Bay Lightning? (They could be. I really don't know.)

Tampa actually is a decent franchise, not to nitpick. Haven't been around that long and already won a Stanley Cup and been in 2 more finals and consistantly in the playoffs (though admittedly not as impressive to do in the NHL)

[MerrittsMustache]

Only if you include the 1800s-era Chicago White Stockings, Chicago Orphans, and Chicago Colts in with the record.

And the have only been over .500 in 12 of last 43 years. 19 of the last 70 years.

And, championships matter.

But, the future looks very bright. If they can bring in Price or Cueto, they will be looking at a long run.

What did you think "all-time winning percentage" meant? Just the last 70 years?

I never said that championships don't matter.

[wadesworld]

Tampa actually is a decent franchise, not to nitpick. Haven't been around that long and already won a Stanley Cup and been in 2 more finals and consistantly in the playoffs (though admittedly not as impressive to do in the NHL)

Haha well shows my hockey knowledge.  Bad example then.  Just knew they were in the Stanley Cup Finals last year but don't remember ever hearing them having won it or really about any success prior to that.  So thought maybe they weren't very good up until last year.

[Lennys Tap]

Only the Yankees, Cardinals, Dodgers, Giants and Red Sox have better all-time winning percentages than the Cubs (.511). It's the nearly total lack of postseason success that has given the Cubs such a bad rap.

I'm calling a "Chicos" on you, Stache. Your stat is technically true but misleading. The Cubs all-time winning percentage is .511, but post WWII (the past 70 years) it's .469. 20 winning seasons in the last 70. For the lifetime of every Scoop poster the Cubs have been a decidedly sub par franchise - at the very least one of the worst in baseball.

That said, IMO they're on the brink of an awesome stretch - multiple World Series wins seem likely.

[JWags85]

That said, IMO they're on the brink of an awesome stretch - multiple World Series wins seem likely.

Oh my lord, stop.  My knuckles are bleeding from knocking every piece of wood in my office building.

[wadesworld]

I'm calling a "Chicos" on you, Stache. Your stat is technically true but misleading. The Cubs all-time winning percentage is .511, but post WWII (the past 70 years) it's .469. 20 winning seasons in the last 70. For the lifetime of every Scoop poster the Cubs have been a decidedly sub par franchise - at the very least one of the worst in baseball.

That said, IMO they're on the brink of an awesome stretch - multiple World Series wins seem likely.

I would never say even a single world championship in any sport is "likely."  It takes a lot of things to go right to win a World Championship, even for the most talented/best teams.  I would definitely say it is certainly possible, though.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I would never say even a single world championship in any sport is "likely."  It takes a lot of things to go right to win a World Championship, even for the most talented/best teams.  I would definitely say it is certainly possible, though.

I'm more than happy to start with one and go from there. 

[WI inferiority Complexes]

I'm calling a "Chicos" on you, Stache. Your stat is technically true but misleading. The Cubs all-time winning percentage is .511, but post WWII (the past 70 years) it's .469. 20 winning seasons in the last 70. For the lifetime of every Scoop poster the Cubs have been a decidedly sub par franchise - at the very least one of the worst in baseball.

So, when are we starting all-time stats, Post WWII?  We're not including Gehrig and Ruth for the Yankees?

[🏀]

If one happens, I'm not sure PTM's liver will make it.

I've had Super Bowls from the Pack where I've peed in my hallway closet and the Stanley Cups where I've passed out in my cul-de-sac.

Cubs World Series...I...don't...I'll apologize to my family with a mailer.

[Lennys Tap]

So, when are we starting all-time stats, Post WWII?  We're not including Gehrig and Ruth for the Yankees?

Whatever makes you happy. But the point remains the reason the Cubs are so ridiculed is because they haven't won the World Series for 109 years AND because they've been mostly bad period for 70 years. Maybe your favorite team's record from 1900-1910 gives you the warm and fuzzies, but I'd guess most Cub fans/baseball fans find it meaningless. UW fans are regularly mocked here for thinking their NCAA championship in 1941 is relevant - rightly so.

[wadesworld]

I can't remember, who did TV play by play for the Brewers before BA? For some reason I feel like whoever it was got scooped up by a national station. If so, it's too bad the Brewers can't evaluate baseball talent like they can TV broadcasters. BA does a good job in both baseball and basketball.