Look, I'm not a Cubs fan but I'm trying to be objective.

Wood and Prior were great that year. Just focus on that year. Forget what they did before and after that season. All that matters was that season for this discusion.

Try reading up on King Arthur. Legends are what they are, the further back in history they are, the more mythical they become. It's all right. It just has to be done correctly in drama terms, not necessarily history terms. "Braveheart" was a great movie. That's all that really matters.

It's fairly obvious what my point is. The Cubs lost that series, the Marlins won it in spite of that. Any team would have won the series because the Cubs gave it out like Turkish Delight.



Then why didn't that show against the Braves?



Fine. It's too bad we didn't have this web site back then so you could prove that. I will believe you, and I also agree that the Cubs are mental midgets.

In fact I think we are somewhat saying the same thing, except that you're wrong.

RR, can we start up some Saints talk now?

Hell no. I am amused as all hell reading a bashing of another monumental Cub failure, in the WSox section of a website run by a persistent Sox (mgmt. at least) critic.

Plus, all there really is to talk about of matter is the Charles Grant 'situation'. Thank you, no.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

I find your response hilariously self-contradictory. Any team would've beaten the Cubs? If that's the case, how can you argue that the Cubs are better than the Marlins?

_________________

Because the Cubs beat themselves.

We mustn't speak of Sir Charles right now, that is true. But trust me, there's plenty of warranted Saints talk.

I just hope the talking heads in ESPN shut their mouths about it. It's bad gris-gris.

Again, the Cubs mistakes indicate that they weren't all that great. They imploded whereas the Marlins did not. But again, if anybody could've beaten the Cubs, then they couldn't have been very good, correct? How can you say both that they're better than the Marlins and they're so bad that they would've lost to anyone? Your argument makes no sense and your earlier implication that I am a liar is pathetic.

_________________

First it was Bartman, then it was AGon, then Dusty, now it was the Cubs (as a group), when will the Marlins get the credit for the win?

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

Damn if my emailbox isn't jammed w/Saints news, all of which I will delete generally w/o reading until just before exhibition game #2.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

Cubs fans will never admit that the better team won. Their "lovable loser" mythology is one of the most pronounced examples of narcissism--albeit in inverted form--one will ever encounter.

_________________

Priceless. I stand in awe TM. Sufficiently elitist in the critique, yet with a Miesian efficiency and succinctness.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

It sounds as if you have already given up on the season. Calm down, and enjoy.

The Angels have been the best team in the AL this season, but I don't think there's a big difference between the top teams in the AL. In a 7 game series, anything can happen as well.

Trying awfully hard to change the subject BD?

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

I didn't read most of the thread, but has it turned into a Cubs thread?

I said you were a liar? Gee, TM I am sorry for that. Could you put more words into my mouth? The Cubs didn't just implode in 2003. They've had a history of doing so. But to say that the Marlins, down 3 games to 2, with only 5 outs left, and being dominated until the 8th inning, were the better team--well, that's the stuff of legend. The Cubs turn a routine play into a disaster.

Would you say the Mets were the better team than the Red Sox in '86 prior to what happened in game 6? Buckner must have just been dominated by a superior ground ball I guess.

Say that the Colts beat the Bears in the Superbowl, that the Colts were the better team...the Bears were an inferior team, and going in you knew that the Colts would ultimately beat the Bears because the Colts were superior...

...and I will surrender my position.

Again, the Cubs made huge mistakes and the Marlins, with the same opportunities to do so, didn't. And baseball games are nine innings, not seven. You seem unwilling to accept the rules of baseball. The idea that there were only "Five outs left" in game six is one of the biggest jokes in the history of baseball fandom. It's as if Cubdom believes that the Marlins were obligated to surrender, that they had no ability or desire to win.

As for your point about the 86 series, I am lost. I didn't watch it so I'm not sure what your argument is. If you're saying that poor fielding at a key moment shouldn't count against the perception of the Red Sox's championship timbre, though, I again disagree. Fielding is part of the game. If you can't do it as well as the other team, there's a pretty good chance you're not as good as they are.

As for your claim that you didn't imply I was a liar, I think it's pretty clear what the meaning of this quote is: Did you even listen to sports radio back in 2003? If you had, you'd know that my views about the Cubs and Baker were hardly anomalous among Score callers.

_________________

You should surrender your position because it is idiotic. A team's inability to make a routine play in a clutch situation indicates they may not be very good.

_________________

I'm still looking for my words saying "TM you are a liar." It's easy to say all what you're saying now. I just would like to hear you say all of what you said about the Cubs after game 5, saying things like "Yeah the Marlins are the better team, they'll win it all." Did you make those calls personally? By the way, I did listen to sports radio back in 2003. I was on the east coast back then though. Perhaps I didn't hear you. Sorry the world doesn't revolve around the midwest.



So will you not admit the Colts were the better team or what?

Now wait Midge, in '03 the "In Dusty We Trusty" contingent was so nauseatingly overwhelming, criticism of the Cubbie mental makeup and Dusty's game mgmt. was virtually non-existent (at least until after game 6)

---I hope I am defining anomalous correctly.

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

I have to point out here I haven't been up past 2am in a long time. I'd like to thank all of you for providing me with some great entertainment for that.

You're losing me with the Cubdom generalities. Real Cubs fans, and real baseball fans don't buy into the "Five Outs Left" mentality.
Now, this team was prime for the sudden meltdown. First, they had only a couple run producers on that team. Sosa was streaky. The only real consistant hitter was Alou. Miller, Patterson, Randall Simon? These guys give you the fear? Second, the problem was Dusty. Dusty did nothing to settle that team down in it's moment of crisis. He allowed them to wallow in the false comfort of a team of destiny. He got the pants managed off of him at every turn by McKeon.
Bartman, the Gonzalez ball, the Alou hissy fit, and the ensuing madness were allowed to happen by a manager who just wanted to let his players play.
In the end, the Marlins were a better team. They had much better hitters, better management, and they had been hot coming into the post season. That Cubs team was an 88 game winner that had a couple good games against the Braves in the postseason, but who doesn't have good games against the Braves in the postseason?

_________________
"Play until it hurts, then play until it hurts to not play."
http://soundcloud.com/darkside124 HOF 2013, MM Champion 2014

1)So you're saying you weren't implying I was lying? Yes or no? If you say no, you're the one who's being dishonest here.

2)Your sarcasm about the "world revolving around the midwest" is childish. Do you think it was unreasonable for me to assume that a guy posting on a Chicago sports talk radio board about a Chicago sporting event that took place in 2003 actually also lived here in 2003? Or are you saying I lack some basic knowledge of your personal biography? If the latter, sorry, but the world doesn't revolve around you and your travels.

3)Re: Bears/Colts--Not that it's relevant, but it's pretty obvious the Colts were better.

4)Just to be clear: You're saying that the Cubs' inability to execute routine plays in clutch situations has no bearing on their quality as a team relative to the Marlins? If so, you got nothing.

_________________

I wasn't implying anything. I said quite bluntly that it's easy to say what you're saying now.



TM why does everything have to come to a personal attack with you? I like you, I like arguing with you. Your self righteousness gets in the way of things sometimes. Nobody needs to tell me that the world doesn't revolve around me or my travels. I have never even come close to being that self centered here.



It's completely relevant and thank you for admitting that. A lot of Bears fans say that the Bears beat themselves and that they were the better team than the Colts but the Bears lost it more than the Colts won it.



Well how many double play botches did the Cubs have before that game that resulted in a loss of that magnitude?

My point is that the Cubs had the game in their hands and they blew it. Why is this hard to understand? I don't know why, at 2:40am mind you, you are making this into some kind of issue.

I've argued, and will continue to argue, that the best team does not always win playoff series or championiships, and to believe otherwise is a mathematical and logical impossibility. Whether the Cubs were better than the Marlins I can't say, except that it took a very low-percentage situation in game six for the Marlins to win the series.

In baseball, and team, even the worst teams, have at least a 25% chance of winning any given game. Look at the betting lines. You'll almost never see a team as high as +300. If you don't believe me, for the remainder of the season, I'll bet $10 at 3-1 odds on the underdog for any games any person chooses. They get to handpick the games and the teams. We'll see who comes out ahead.

In the playoffs, obviously, the teams are much more closely matched. Even the "blowout" type games are considered 60-40 by the morning line. Baseball is a game too full of white noise- fluke bloop hits, balls that would be hits if they were four feet over but turn into double plays, etc. Hence the 162 game season; imagine what the playoffs would look like if each team only played a 16 game season, like the NFL, or only played each team in the conference once. The playoff teams would be different, obviously, because a single game of baseball is a poor indicator of ability (most games are 60-40, even against not particularly closely matched teams), so you want a lot of them to reach a statistically significant situation.

When you get to the playoffs, you're left with 8 teams that have proven, over 162 games, that they have some claim to superiority over at least 18 or so of the others, if not 22 (you could still make a claim, I suppose, that a team that loses a race by one or two games might be better if only one or two fluke-type things didn't happen during the season.) Now, however, you only have 5 or 7 game series to prove your superiority. Once again assume the 60-40 split, which is considered a wide one for two playoff teams. The worse team, the one with a 40% of winning any individual game, still has a 6% chance of sweeping the better team (.4 * .4 * .4), and and a much, much better chance of winning the series in general. In any given year, we'd expect one worse team to win a divisional series. The same logic applies to the championship serieses and world series, although the longer series cuts down on flukes, the teams are also closer.

The best teams do not always win championships.

_________________
Fire Phil Emery

To find out which was the team was the best between the 2003 Cubs and Marlins, do not even look at game 6.

The Cubs held a lead in game 7 and pissed it away. Marlins win the series, and any debate over who was the better team.

_________________

The 2003 Marlins were BETTER than the 2003 Cubs--Pudge, Lowell, D-Lee--the lineup was pretty tough. Along with a lights-out rotation. The better team won that series. Im just sayin....

_________________
"YOU GOTTA BE BLEEPING ME"