Are Cubs fans honoring the wrong people?
I've been a Cubs fan since I first became aware of the world in the very early sixties. As a youngster, I was crushed, along with every other fan, when the '69 team collapsed. As a young adult, I thrilled to the exploits of the great '84 team (which I'm watching clinch the division again as I type this) and was devastated by its stunning defeat in the play-offs. The play-off losses in '89 and '98 were disappointing, but they weren't entirely unexpected, while the debacle of 2003 is still too painful to mention.
With that in mind, it occurred to me a couple of years ago that perhaps the reason for the Cubs' lack of success is due to the fact that we've been honoring the wrong players. I grew up idolizing Billy Williams, Ernie Banks, Fergie, and Ron Santo, and in the eighties counted Ryno, Leon Durham, Rick Sutcliffe, and Lee Smith among my favorite players. Since those are the players many of us actually saw play, it's only natural that we pay them the respect they deserve as great players. However, the one thing all of them have in common is that they never got to the World Series.
That's why I wonder if we've been taking the wrong approach for the last forty years. Instead of paying so much tribute to the stars of our generations, maybe we should really be honoring the 1908 team for being the last Cubs team to be World Champions. Now, I'm not saying we should love the stars of our lifetimes any less, but maybe the key to changing the Cubs' fortunes is to place greater emphasis on the accomplishments of players such as Frank Chance, Mordecai Brown, Joe Tinker, and Johnny Evers and commemorate their accomplishments with banners on the flagpoles and special promotional days. I know it's hard for the vast majority of us to relate to them since they didn't play in our lifetimes, but the important thing is that they were the last Cubs team to win it all. Maybe if we honored them as much or more than our sentimental favorites, we might be able to conjure up some of their winning mojo. Since nothing else has worked for a long, long time, there would be nothing to lose by giving it a shot. At least it's a straw we haven't tried grasping yet.
This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation or Al Yellon, managing editor (unless it's a FanPost posted by Al). FanPost opinions are valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.
31 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wow,
My 2 cents: The curse is a joke and the way you win a WS is to put together a team that works so beautifully together (ie. the Red Sox). The Cubs give me hope this year, but then again, what the hell is new?
Hear, hear.
No one here was alive when the 1908 team played, no one here can relate stories, there's no audio or video; it seems the ancient past. Not that those teams weren't great -- they were -- or worth honoring -- they are -- but it's harder to do when you have no first-person remembrances to talk about.
There are some of us though
This isn't a silly either/or proposition though. One can easily honor the Brown, Chance, Evers, and Pfiester without slighting Banks, Williams, Santo and Jenkins or Sandberg, Davis, Sutcliffe and Smith. Each were the glory of their times.
by Josh Timmers on Feb 18, 2008 6:36 PM CST up reply actions
Absolutely true...
It's human nature
While we're at it...
by santoswoodenlegs on Feb 18, 2008 1:52 PM CST reply actions
You must
Seriously I for one hate the constant reminders that it has been 100 years. By running up the flagpole any of these guys names, will only continue to bring further to the forefront the futility know as the Chicago Cubs.
Nice diary though.
Not to mention
Don't take this theory too seriously
And yes, I do have too much time on my hands today since we're essentially snowed in here.
by Mike Vails Evil Twin on Feb 18, 2008 2:26 PM CST reply actions
Oh I wasn't...
by Kinky Reggae on Feb 18, 2008 2:43 PM CST up reply actions
Reminds of Letterman top 10
there was a top 10 list of "Reasons the Cubs have not one
since 1908" The one I remember was
" too many players from 1908 still on team"
Stupid but funny
Anyway not readly to order my Frank Chance jersey
anytime soon.
by jessica on Feb 18, 2008 3:01 PM CST reply actions
I wear my Cap Anson jersey
Ah, but that is the beauty of it...
Commemorate 1908
According to ...
1906-1910 Cubs
They deserve to be honored. Spirit of '08!
They really were
The team just didn't have any weaknesses. They were solid from one to nine through the lineup and went four deep in the rotation, in a time when most teams didn't use four pitchers.
by Josh Timmers on Feb 18, 2008 7:30 PM CST up reply actions
It would be nice to see
I understand very few people around now remember these players, but the Cubs have a long history and it should be recognized better than it has been.
The Giants....
For pre-1950 players, they should retire #44 for Phil Cavarretta, #6 for Stan Hack, #2 for Gabby Hartnett and #4 for Billy Herman (Herman also wore #2, before Hartnett). Those are the greatest players of the between-the-wars era who had long careers with the Cubs.
No, I'm not
As old as my father was (he was 53 when I was born), he lived his entire 90-yr life w/o being alive - let alone seeing - Cubs WS title. He played against Phil Cavarretta when he was at LakeView high and Phil was at Lane Tech.
I honor Billy, Ryno, Ernie, Ronnie, Fergie, Randy, DonK, Milt and many others since they were premier players for the Cubs over the years.
Retiring numbers has some gray area. Where is the line drawn for accomplishment? It's a tough call. There can be a case made for 10-20 guys who's number isn't retired...yet.
Take a look at all the teams in this city, a case can be made for at least a handful of players, who's number isn't retired, to retire it soon.
For the Cubs, Jenkins will get his 31 almost by default because of another guy (what's his name again?) who may be playing his last season in 2008. My guess is one "31" will go up the LF foul pole for Fergie and another "31" will up the RF foul pole for Maddog; in the not too distant future.
There is precedent...
My 2 cents
My problem is putting a statue of an announcer outside the stadium who was announcer also for the Cubs 2 biggest rivals.
I would say
Also, Brickhouse got dissed a bit in that process as well. In the end, popularity sells, and Harry was the popular one.
The difference between the two....
That's absolutely right on.
Brickhouse interviewed many newsmakers in his peer group back in the 50's and 60's strictly as a news reporter. I distinctly rememeber some archival footage of him interviewing the future President Kennedy, prior to the 1960 election.
Of course, Caray talked with newsmakers too...but usually it was in a baseball context. Brickhouse would step outside the confines of sports, and from all I have read and seen, was very good.
And, the White Sox could claim Brickhouse as one of their own, too. WGN was the exclusive home of both teams, until the early 1970's. Jack's "Hey-Hey" rang out for Moose Skowron's home runs at Comiskey Park.
As an aside here -- I'm looking at a Hamms' Beer "1969 Cubs and Sox TV Schedule." 124 Cubs Games were televised, as opposed to 122 White Sox games. (Only one game of a DH was televised, says the schedule....somehow, I don't remember that)
Anyway, Brickhouse did the majority of those games...traveling with both teams. Fellow WGN broadcasters like Lloyd Petit and Vince Lloyd and others would fill in when Brickhouse was on the road, with either team.)
Brickhouse worked the 1959 World Series with Vin Scully, for network TV.
Brickhouse is more than a Cubs icon -- he's a true Chicago icon.
by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Feb 20, 2008 12:08 AM CST reply actions
By 1969...
But you have pointed out that back in those days, certain Cub road games were not routinely televised. For example, WGN rarely did West Coast night games, and didn't go to Canada to televise Expos/Cubs games very often.
Before 1968, when WGN did games of both teams, it was all the Cub home games and most home White Sox games. Road telecasts were rare prior to 1968.
Honor '08
My sole source of 1908 knowledge is from Golenbock's "Wrigleyville", which certainly made me appreciate the drama of the 1908 season. Recommended reading for any Cubs fan.

by 




















