10,000-9,465

[Valadius]

The Cubs won their 10,000th game in their history last night. Their overall record is 10,000-9,465. My question is, if they're such big losers, and they haven't won a World Series in a hundred years, how the hell do they still have an all-time winning record?

[stevejrogers]

Valadius wrote: The Cubs won their 10,000th game in their history last night. Their overall record is 10,000-9,465. My question is, if they're such big losers, and they haven't won a World Series in a hundred years, how the hell do they still have an all-time winning record?

They were quite a force in the 1870s through their run in the early 1900s, so they built up a real strong lead on the situation that their dark periods (which haven't been for real lenghty periods as say the Phillies or Athletics) only dragged them down towards the .500 mark rather than the other way around.

[seawolf17]

It's kinda like the Yankees winning a lot of games during the regular season, then getting their asses kicked in the playoffs.

[Elster88]

Val do you really not understand? Even Rogers gets it.

[Valadius]

I understand it and it makes sense, it just infuriates me that the Cubs get away with the "lovable losers" garbage when they've been more successful than not.

[nymr83]

winning a bunch of games before any of their current fasns were born doesn't make them any less "losers" just like yankee championships 50 years ago are meaningless.

[Guest AG/DC]

It infuriates you?

[Elster88]

Nymr83 wrote: winning a bunch of games before any of their current fasns were born doesn't make them any less "losers" just like yankee championships 50 years ago are meaningless.

LOL Yank fans are ridiculous. Are you really proud of that World Series title from before your grandfather was born?

[Guest AG/DC]

Let's all get up and worship some shlong
That was a Yank before your mother was born
Though she was born a long long time ago
Bandwagons must grow

[Benjamin Grimm]

AG/DC wrote: It infuriates you?

I'm telling you, he's a Donald Trump in the making.

[Frayed Knot]

Nothing more fun than listening to a 21 y/o Yanqui fan bragging about "his" 26 championships.


The main distortion about Cubs history comes from the media-fueled connecting of them to the BoSox in terms of heartbreak. Except that unlike the Sawx - who can count a number of division championships plus some close and often spectacular near-misses ('46, '67, '78, '86, 2003) during their lengthy history of non-championships - the Cubs have just plain been real bad for most of the last half-century or so.

Sucked does not equal star-crossed underdogs

[stevejrogers]

Frayed Knot wrote: Nothing more fun than listening to a 21 y/o Yanqui fan bragging about "his" 26 championships. The main distortion about Cubs history comes from the media-fueled connecting of them to the BoSox in terms of heartbreak. Except that unlike the Sawx - who can count a number of division championships plus some close and often spectacular near-misses ('46, '67, '78, '86, 2003) during their lengthy history of non-championships - the Cubs have just plain been real bad for most of the last half-century or so. Sucked does not equal star-crossed underdogs

Yup, not to mention the last time the Cubs had anything remotly considered a lenghty period of sustained great play was when they won 5 NL flags from 29 through 45 (well 4 from 29-38 but I'll tack on their last NL pennant year).

They don't even have a Mets 1984-1990 period to really brag that much about.