I admit it...

[Slaky]

Starting decade number nine today

Stew, my father--who's 82 and, fortunately, still cognizant enough where we can (and do) bullshit a bunch about the current Cubs-- helped me appreciate your particular generation's existence as a Cubs fan.  Like you (and Andy's dad and Fork's dad and probably flannj's dad and several others' dads here), my dad came of age when the "brand" of the Cubs was still on par with any other elite franchise in all sports (but, of course, being the early 1940's, only 1 sport mattered at this point).  My dad's father (my grandfather) would relate to his young son tales of players from the recently-ended National League power of the 30's--my grandfather's favorite apparently being Riggs Stephenson (though Kiki (pr. "kai-kai") Cuyler (so..."kai-kai-kai-ler") was a close second.  Hack Wilson, of course, and of course Hartnett.  See for my dad's dad, those guys not only evoked a recent great team, but of course carried on a winning tradition which had been--but for the 1890's-- one of the more consistently safe bets since the franchise had been founded in 1876.  Sure, the 1920's hadn't been kind to the franchise--wherein the Cubs had finished in the dreaded "second division" in  5 of the 6  seasons between 1920 and 1925 (before eventually capturing a pennant in '29 after an 11 year drought).  In fact, in spite of going pennant-less between 1910 and 1918 the franchise finished in the second division only twice in those years.  Prior to 1910, of course, they had established themselves as the per-eminent power in baseball, not only winning the pennant from '06--'08, but setting single season, consecutive season and three-consecutive-season records for wins (in spite of playing 152 ('06 & '07) or 154 ('08) game seasons).

The point is, Stew, you grew up with a team that had a completely different perception from the one that every subsequent generation of Cubs fans grew up with.  Winning--or at least competing to win-- was an expectation.

And instead you got to witness the first stretch of consistently bad baseball in franchise history (aside from an admittedly awful 11-year run between 1892 and 1902 wherein the Orphans finished in the second division 9 times (although they did finish over .500 in 4 of those 11 seasons total)).  

To wit: between 1947 and 1966--20 straight seasons--the Cubs failed to finish a regular season (Ha!  Like there'd be any other kind during this time) over .500 a single fucking time-- having only finished 77-77 in 1954.  They lost 100 games for the first--and second-- time in franchise history in 1962 (and '66).   What followed was of course some macabre theater that still haunts today's baby boomers, followed by 4 decades of varying combinations of short-term bad, short-term really-bad, lots of meh, short-term HOLY SHIT WE'RE GOING ALL THE WAY! and whatnot.

This is all to say, Stew, that you better fucking plan on hanging around for another 10 years at least because you're about to see a long-awaited historic correction and you and all of your generation of Cubs fans deserve this shit more than anybody.  Mazel Tov.

We took the kids to a little league tournament this morning and I was chatting to a couple of the other Dads.  When I told them I'd been a Cubs' fan for getting on for twenty years, they yukked it up good and proper... until I mentioned Stew and how long he's been a Cubs' fan.  Even they couldn't bring themselves to take the piss out of that.

Though Andy Pafko was (and is) my favorite Cub, I also think that Stan Hack belongs among the list of great Cubs.  (A .301 lifetime BA)  I also favored Peanuts Lowery and Phil Cavarretta.  Damn!  The Cubs sure had some heroes in the 1940's.

A guy I noticed never gets a lot of love was Bill Nicholson. Had some pretty good years, no?

[CBStew]

Starting decade number nine today

Stew, my father--who's 82 and, fortunately, still cognizant enough where we can (and do) bullshit a bunch about the current Cubs-- helped me appreciate your particular generation's existence as a Cubs fan.  Like you (and Andy's dad and Fork's dad and probably flannj's dad and several others' dads here), my dad came of age when the "brand" of the Cubs was still on par with any other elite franchise in all sports (but, of course, being the early 1940's, only 1 sport mattered at this point).  My dad's father (my grandfather) would relate to his young son tales of players from the recently-ended National League power of the 30's--my grandfather's favorite apparently being Riggs Stephenson (though Kiki (pr. "kai-kai") Cuyler (so..."kai-kai-kai-ler") was a close second.  Hack Wilson, of course, and of course Hartnett.  See for my dad's dad, those guys not only evoked a recent great team, but of course carried on a winning tradition which had been--but for the 1890's-- one of the more consistently safe bets since the franchise had been founded in 1876.  Sure, the 1920's hadn't been kind to the franchise--wherein the Cubs had finished in the dreaded "second division" in  5 of the 6  seasons between 1920 and 1925 (before eventually capturing a pennant in '29 after an 11 year drought).  In fact, in spite of going pennant-less between 1910 and 1918 the franchise finished in the second division only twice in those years.  Prior to 1910, of course, they had established themselves as the per-eminent power in baseball, not only winning the pennant from '06--'08, but setting single season, consecutive season and three-consecutive-season records for wins (in spite of playing 152 ('06 & '07) or 154 ('08) game seasons).

The point is, Stew, you grew up with a team that had a completely different perception from the one that every subsequent generation of Cubs fans grew up with.  Winning--or at least competing to win-- was an expectation.

And instead you got to witness the first stretch of consistently bad baseball in franchise history (aside from an admittedly awful 11-year run between 1892 and 1902 wherein the Orphans finished in the second division 9 times (although they did finish over .500 in 4 of those 11 seasons total)).  

To wit: between 1947 and 1966--20 straight seasons--the Cubs failed to finish a regular season (Ha!  Like there'd be any other kind during this time) over .500 a single fucking time-- having only finished 77-77 in 1954.  They lost 100 games for the first--and second-- time in franchise history in 1962 (and '66).   What followed was of course some macabre theater that still haunts today's baby boomers, followed by 4 decades of varying combinations of short-term bad, short-term really-bad, lots of meh, short-term HOLY SHIT WE'RE GOING ALL THE WAY! and whatnot.

This is all to say, Stew, that you better fucking plan on hanging around for another 10 years at least because you're about to see a long-awaited historic correction and you and all of your generation of Cubs fans deserve this shit more than anybody.  Mazel Tov.

We took the kids to a little league tournament this morning and I was chatting to a couple of the other Dads.  When I told them I'd been a Cubs' fan for getting on for twenty years, they yukked it up good and proper... until I mentioned Stew and how long he's been a Cubs' fan.  Even they couldn't bring themselves to take the piss out of that.

Though Andy Pafko was (and is) my favorite Cub, I also think that Stan Hack belongs among the list of great Cubs.  (A .301 lifetime BA)  I also favored Peanuts Lowery and Phil Cavarretta.  Damn!  The Cubs sure had some heroes in the 1940's.

A guy I noticed never gets a lot of love was Bill Nicholson. Had some pretty good years, no?

We used to refer to him as "Swish" Nicholson, because of his strikeouts.  It's terrible the way words change in their meanings.

[Quality Start Machine]

Starting decade number nine today

Stew, my father--who's 82 and, fortunately, still cognizant enough where we can (and do) bullshit a bunch about the current Cubs-- helped me appreciate your particular generation's existence as a Cubs fan.  Like you (and Andy's dad and Fork's dad and probably flannj's dad and several others' dads here), my dad came of age when the "brand" of the Cubs was still on par with any other elite franchise in all sports (but, of course, being the early 1940's, only 1 sport mattered at this point).  My dad's father (my grandfather) would relate to his young son tales of players from the recently-ended National League power of the 30's--my grandfather's favorite apparently being Riggs Stephenson (though Kiki (pr. "kai-kai") Cuyler (so..."kai-kai-kai-ler") was a close second.  Hack Wilson, of course, and of course Hartnett.  See for my dad's dad, those guys not only evoked a recent great team, but of course carried on a winning tradition which had been--but for the 1890's-- one of the more consistently safe bets since the franchise had been founded in 1876.  Sure, the 1920's hadn't been kind to the franchise--wherein the Cubs had finished in the dreaded "second division" in  5 of the 6  seasons between 1920 and 1925 (before eventually capturing a pennant in '29 after an 11 year drought).  In fact, in spite of going pennant-less between 1910 and 1918 the franchise finished in the second division only twice in those years.  Prior to 1910, of course, they had established themselves as the per-eminent power in baseball, not only winning the pennant from '06--'08, but setting single season, consecutive season and three-consecutive-season records for wins (in spite of playing 152 ('06 & '07) or 154 ('08) game seasons).

The point is, Stew, you grew up with a team that had a completely different perception from the one that every subsequent generation of Cubs fans grew up with.  Winning--or at least competing to win-- was an expectation.

And instead you got to witness the first stretch of consistently bad baseball in franchise history (aside from an admittedly awful 11-year run between 1892 and 1902 wherein the Orphans finished in the second division 9 times (although they did finish over .500 in 4 of those 11 seasons total)).  

To wit: between 1947 and 1966--20 straight seasons--the Cubs failed to finish a regular season (Ha!  Like there'd be any other kind during this time) over .500 a single fucking time-- having only finished 77-77 in 1954.  They lost 100 games for the first--and second-- time in franchise history in 1962 (and '66).   What followed was of course some macabre theater that still haunts today's baby boomers, followed by 4 decades of varying combinations of short-term bad, short-term really-bad, lots of meh, short-term HOLY SHIT WE'RE GOING ALL THE WAY! and whatnot.

This is all to say, Stew, that you better fucking plan on hanging around for another 10 years at least because you're about to see a long-awaited historic correction and you and all of your generation of Cubs fans deserve this shit more than anybody.  Mazel Tov.

We took the kids to a little league tournament this morning and I was chatting to a couple of the other Dads.  When I told them I'd been a Cubs' fan for getting on for twenty years, they yukked it up good and proper... until I mentioned Stew and how long he's been a Cubs' fan.  Even they couldn't bring themselves to take the piss out of that.

Though Andy Pafko was (and is) my favorite Cub, I also think that Stan Hack belongs among the list of great Cubs.  (A .301 lifetime BA)  I also favored Peanuts Lowery and Phil Cavarretta.  Damn!  The Cubs sure had some heroes in the 1940's.

A guy I noticed never gets a lot of love was Bill Nicholson. Had some pretty good years, no?

We used to refer to him as "Swish" Nicholson, because of his strikeouts.  It's terrible the way words change in their meanings.

He was a 4F destruction machine...Stew, didn't he almost his the CF scoreboard?

[Canadouche]

Starting decade number nine today

Stew, my father--who's 82 and, fortunately, still cognizant enough where we can (and do) bullshit a bunch about the current Cubs-- helped me appreciate your particular generation's existence as a Cubs fan.  Like you (and Andy's dad and Fork's dad and probably flannj's dad and several others' dads here), my dad came of age when the "brand" of the Cubs was still on par with any other elite franchise in all sports (but, of course, being the early 1940's, only 1 sport mattered at this point).  My dad's father (my grandfather) would relate to his young son tales of players from the recently-ended National League power of the 30's--my grandfather's favorite apparently being Riggs Stephenson (though Kiki (pr. "kai-kai") Cuyler (so..."kai-kai-kai-ler") was a close second.  Hack Wilson, of course, and of course Hartnett.  See for my dad's dad, those guys not only evoked a recent great team, but of course carried on a winning tradition which had been--but for the 1890's-- one of the more consistently safe bets since the franchise had been founded in 1876.  Sure, the 1920's hadn't been kind to the franchise--wherein the Cubs had finished in the dreaded "second division" in  5 of the 6  seasons between 1920 and 1925 (before eventually capturing a pennant in '29 after an 11 year drought).  In fact, in spite of going pennant-less between 1910 and 1918 the franchise finished in the second division only twice in those years.  Prior to 1910, of course, they had established themselves as the per-eminent power in baseball, not only winning the pennant from '06--'08, but setting single season, consecutive season and three-consecutive-season records for wins (in spite of playing 152 ('06 & '07) or 154 ('08) game seasons).

The point is, Stew, you grew up with a team that had a completely different perception from the one that every subsequent generation of Cubs fans grew up with.  Winning--or at least competing to win-- was an expectation.

And instead you got to witness the first stretch of consistently bad baseball in franchise history (aside from an admittedly awful 11-year run between 1892 and 1902 wherein the Orphans finished in the second division 9 times (although they did finish over .500 in 4 of those 11 seasons total)).  

To wit: between 1947 and 1966--20 straight seasons--the Cubs failed to finish a regular season (Ha!  Like there'd be any other kind during this time) over .500 a single fucking time-- having only finished 77-77 in 1954.  They lost 100 games for the first--and second-- time in franchise history in 1962 (and '66).   What followed was of course some macabre theater that still haunts today's baby boomers, followed by 4 decades of varying combinations of short-term bad, short-term really-bad, lots of meh, short-term HOLY SHIT WE'RE GOING ALL THE WAY! and whatnot.

This is all to say, Stew, that you better fucking plan on hanging around for another 10 years at least because you're about to see a long-awaited historic correction and you and all of your generation of Cubs fans deserve this shit more than anybody.  Mazel Tov.

We took the kids to a little league tournament this morning and I was chatting to a couple of the other Dads.  When I told them I'd been a Cubs' fan for getting on for twenty years, they yukked it up good and proper... until I mentioned Stew and how long he's been a Cubs' fan.  Even they couldn't bring themselves to take the piss out of that.

Though Andy Pafko was (and is) my favorite Cub, I also think that Stan Hack belongs among the list of great Cubs.  (A .301 lifetime BA)  I also favored Peanuts Lowery and Phil Cavarretta.  Damn!  The Cubs sure had some heroes in the 1940's.

A guy I noticed never gets a lot of love was Bill Nicholson. Had some pretty good years, no?

We used to refer to him as "Swish" Nicholson, because of his strikeouts.  It's terrible the way words change in their meanings.

He lead the league in 1947 with a ridiculous 83 strikeouts.

I honestly have wondered for a while what happened in that era that seemed to reduce the number of strikeouts in the league. In 1946, the NL leader had 135, and while Bob Feller led the AL with 348, the next year he dropped off to 196, and no pitcher would strike out 200+ again until Herb Score did it in 1955.

[Quality Start Machine]

He lead the league in 1947 with a ridiculous 83 strikeouts.

I honestly have wondered for a while what happened in that era that seemed to reduce the number of strikeouts in the league. In 1946, the NL leader had 135, and while Bob Feller led the AL with 348, the next year he dropped off to 196, and no pitcher would strike out 200+ again until Herb Score did it in 1955.

Negroes.

[Canadouche]

My wife thinks I'm lame because I've been looking at pictures and watching videos of the new clubhouse.

[thehawk]

My wife thinks I'm lame because I've been looking at pictures and watching videos of the new clubhouse.

Right conclusion, wrong reason.

[Canadouche]

My wife thinks I'm lame because I've been looking at pictures and watching videos of the new clubhouse.

Right conclusion, wrong reason.

...my wife thinks I'm lame because I play D&D?

[Bort]

My wife thinks I'm lame because I've been looking at pictures and watching videos of the new clubhouse.

Right conclusion, wrong reason.

...my wife thinks I'm lame because I play D&D?

To be fair, much like for my own wife, there's a rich tapestry of reasons she thinks you're lame.

[Canadouche]

My wife thinks I'm lame because I've been looking at pictures and watching videos of the new clubhouse.

Right conclusion, wrong reason.

...my wife thinks I'm lame because I play D&D?

To be fair, much like for my own wife, there's a rich tapestry of reasons she thinks you're lame.

This is accurate.

[InternetApex]

My wife thinks I'm lame because I've been looking at pictures and watching videos of the new clubhouse.

Right conclusion, wrong reason.

...my wife thinks I'm lame because I play D&D?

To be fair, much like for my own wife, there's a rich tapestry of reasons she thinks you're lame.

This is accurate.

My fiancee doesn't think I'm lame yet. Please don't tell her, ok?

[Tonker]

My wife thinks I'm lame because I've been looking at pictures and watching videos of the new clubhouse.

Right conclusion, wrong reason.

...my wife thinks I'm lame because I play D&D?

To be fair, much like for my own wife, there's a rich tapestry of reasons she thinks you're lame.

This is accurate.

My fiancee doesn't think I'm lame yet. Please don't tell her, ok?

Mate, I've met JPex.  She's way, way too smart not to have figured out what a numpty you are already.

[InternetApex]

My wife thinks I'm lame because I've been looking at pictures and watching videos of the new clubhouse.

Right conclusion, wrong reason.

...my wife thinks I'm lame because I play D&D?

To be fair, much like for my own wife, there's a rich tapestry of reasons she thinks you're lame.

This is accurate.

My fiancee doesn't think I'm lame yet. Please don't tell her, ok?

Mate, I've met JPex.  She's way, way too smart not to have figured out what a numpty you are already.

Wonder why she's playing coy about it. I'm worried.

[Yeti]

...Prince doesn't really register for me.

[Bort]

...Prince doesn't really register for me.

BREAKING: White guy in central Illinois that thinks mayonnaise is "too spicy" not into Prince.

(I didn't really get into Prince until a few years ago)