Talk:Chicago Cubs

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Chicago (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Baseball / Old-time Base Ball / Cubs (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Old-time Base Ball task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Chicago Cubs (marked as Top-importance).

This article has comments here.

WikiProject Illinois (Rated C-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Illinois, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article has an assessment summary page.

Update Uniform[edit]

The illustration of the uniforms is outdated for the 2009 season because the away caps no longer have the red bill and are now identical to their home caps. I don't know where to find a new illustration but I hope someone can.Cedargang (talk) 03:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

You're right Cedargang. Here is the link to the exact changes. Just scroll down to the Cubs section. Update: Apparently, Silent wind of Doom fixed this. sorebearmat (talk) 22:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Jim Edmonds[edit]

The Cubs have a long history of signing has-beens in the hope they've got something left. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. My poor husband had to listen to me rant for a half hour last night about this signing. Is it wrong to hope Edmonds goes on the disabled list? --Fabrictramp (talk) 01:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I guess it depends on your personal POV. I don't see why ppl are getting so uptight; I think Edmonds could bring some fresh spark to the lineup. --Cubs Fan (talk) 01:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
We'll see if this turns out to be more significant than the signing of Fred McGriff, for example. Usually, when they pick up one of these guys, it means they're doomed for the year. This kind of thing started with Dizzy Dean, who actually helped them down the stretch in 1938, at the end of the William Wrigley / William Veeck legacy era, but too many times these guys prove to be a detriment. We'll see. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:19, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Sure, Edmonds could bring some fresh spark to the line up. So could anyone from AA. He hasn't hit over the league average since 2004, his fielding percentage hasn't been over the league average since 2005.[1] Reed Johnson, who Edmonds is kicking out of CF, has a higher BA, OBP, and SLG this year. So tell me, how is this a good move?--Fabrictramp (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
What it actually reminds me of, for those old enough to remember, is the Johnny Callison deal of 1970. He was supposed to be some sort of improvement over Don Young. He wasn't. He was a formerly excellent player who was fairly much washed up. This is a bad sign for the Cubs, but we'll see. Maybe he'll turn out to be more like Ron Cey, who was also over the hill when the Cubs got him in 1983, but he was important in their divisional run in 1984. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty to call his newfound er I mean all-time fanbase, "Ed-Heads", a spoof of Deadheads. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:12, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Remember the "Shawon-O-Meter", where someone kept track of Shawon Dunston's meager batting average? Someone needs to make an "Ed-O-Meter" to trace Edmonds average as it attempts to stay above the Mendoza Line. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
Edmonds's line with the Cubs this year: .280/.377/.566. A mid-season acquisition's worth is dictated by how he performs with his new team, in this case well above the Mendoza line and very respectable numbers. His numbers before playing with the Cubs this year are inconsequential when determining his value to the Cubs. EchoBravo (talk) 20:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I have to admit I'm thrilled to have been proven wrong about the signing. Still, before a player actually plays with his new team, all you have to go by is previous numbers. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
I know, and I did not like the signing myself at the time. I've since had to eat a lot of crow . EchoBravo (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

99 vs. 100[edit]

For the arithmetically challenged in the audience, the Cubs' World Series drought is 99 years, not 100. 2008 is the 100th anniversary of their last Series win. But the actual anniversary is not until the start of the 2008 World Series. So the actual drought is 99. If and when the Cubs are eliminated from post-season play in 2008, then their drought will stand at 100. To put it another way, they have played 99 full seasons since 1908, that is 1909 through 2007. The drought is 99. It is not 100. Yet. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 08:23, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, "Yet". :p --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  15:15, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
Currently they have the best record in baseball. That means little in June. But it's better to be where they are than where, say, the Seattle Mariners are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
For further online calculations, based on when the Cubs ended won the WS, 10/14, see [2]. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  06:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
We're talking seasons, not days. The Series comes at a later date now than it did in 1908, but what matters is whether they win it or not. If they win it, the drought was 99 years (or actually "seasons") no matter the date. If they lose it, or don't get in it, the drought becomes 100, regardless of what date they're ousted. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:48, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
I get really annoyed with Sox fans because they are so dumb(no offense but I couldn't think of a better word) and they say it's has been 101 years. Like what the heck?Cedargang (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
It will now unfortunatley be 100 years but technically it won't be 100 years until Oct. 14. Because of the strike in 1994(I think), it has only been 99 seasons. So Cubs fans have a couple loopholes for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:40, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
It's 100 seasons without a Series winner, so the drought is 100. The specific date is not important. The figure is now 100. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Question and Answer[edit]

I'm not a contributor, but as a Die-Hard Cubs Fan, I like everything and commend Wikipedia for allowing both information and entertainment content. After all, the subject is baseball, a favorite American past time that includes International interest and participation. This article is very thorough and provides understanding for readers around the world curious about the Chicago Cubs phenomena. In fact, I would ask for another sentence, reference or link regarding alleged managerial mistakes in the 1989 playoff. And, regards the 1984 playoffs, the Cubs did not have lights as yet to play night baseball. I believe this slightly altered the scheduling of the series, but I don't remember how. Exarctly (talk) 22:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a false rumor. The lack of lights in 1984 did not alter the post-season schedule. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It didnt alter the schedule. It would possibly have in the World Series, though. As far as the managerial blunders by Zim, remember that this page only includes a summary of the on-field history. For a more in depth version (which already mentions that) see History of the Chicago Cubs.Wjmummert (talk) 15:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

2008 - Back to Back?[edit]

Is it just me, or is that section extemely POV-ish?<3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

It could use some minor tweaks and references, but it's nothing worth totally extracting. I'll get on it sooner or later. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  05:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
you know, just 2008 might be a better title. its hard to pick a title when it's still so early. i could call it the collapse of 2008, but i prefer optomism.Wjmummert (talk) 15:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if they collapsed, I was going to blame you for jinxing them :p --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Beware of too much "crystal ball" stuff. Wikipedia frowns on speculation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Was the 'loveable losers' bit ever resolved? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  16:33, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
LOVEABLE LOSERS has not been resolved. It belongs in the article.... just not in the intro. I already mentioned and sourced it later inthe article.... see the "Fall of 69" section. they can discuss that on the Chicago Cubs futility theories page that I created last year.... Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 00:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)


How about the Kerry Wood 20 strikeout game? Should this go here too?Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 22:13, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

What about when Ron burned his hairpiece. It is possibly the most memorable event off the field. On the field, I think it would be Zambrano's no hitter. It would tie Woody's 20KsCedargang (talk) 02:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

May 17 = the 30th anniversary of the 23-22 game vs Phillies. Highest scoring game ever. 3 hrs by kong. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 15:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the highest scoring was another Phillies game at Wrigley, on August 25, 1922, which the Cubs won 26-23. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 17:08, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for getting that wrong. Mjhammerle123 (talk) 19:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Here are retrosheet box scores for three high-scoring Cubs-Phillies games at Wrigley. Schmidt was a killer in the two from the 70s. The 1976 game featured 4 HR's by Schmidt, and tied the record for largest comeback. Had the Phils come back and won in 1922, which they came close to doing, that would have been the record:

Team nicknames[edit]

Made a couple of minor changes to date when the Cubs' previous nicknames changed. This was done clear up any and all confusion as to when they were the Colts and when they were the Orphans, as it came up in a peer review of different article. I referenced all three with, a trusted site, but all other trusted sites concur with the dates as well.Neonblak (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

The "Cubs" nickname was by no means "official" in 1903, it was simply in use by then. As noted in History of baseball team nicknames, "Colts" was used frequently through 1905. "Cubs" really took hold in 1906 and the team acknowledged it in print for the firs time in 1907, so 1907 is the better answer of when it became "official". The problem with sites like baseball-reference is that they parrot stuff from other sources without bothering to research the facts. They also don't always get it right, no matter how "trusted" they are. Someone found a mistake there the other day as regards Davey Johnson's home run record - they had lost a home run in 1973, whereas another site had it right. There were other issues about Johnson's info also. [3] Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:31, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Wrigley Field North[edit]

I believe it would be appropriate to mention the development of Miller Park as "Wrigley North." There have been numerous articles (in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times) all of which have referred to Miller Park as "Wrigley North" I'm willing to put something together if it will be posted Bforner (talk) 16:40, 10 September 2008 (UTC)bforner

That's covered in the Miller Park article, but if you can provide additional references, that would be good. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Of greater historical interest would be to show how the Milwaukee Braves of the 1950s benefited from their proximity to Chicago, as many Chicagoans went north to watch a good National League team. In 1959, it was nearly a Sox-Braves World Series, which would have been something - but the Dodgers won the playoff with the Braves, and then beat the Sox in the Series. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:45, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Hack-wilson.jpg[edit]

The image Image:Hack-wilson.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

  • That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
  • That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --09:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Harry Caray's Restaurant[edit]

As a Houston Astros fan I wouldn't deign to edit this page, but under the Wrigley Field paragraph I read:

"The area surrounding the ballpark is typically referred to as Wrigleyville. There is a dense collection of bars and nightclubs in the area, most with baseball inspired themes, including Harry Caray's, Murphy's Bleachers, and Sluggers"

I ate at Harry Caray's several years ago, and recall it being just north of the River -- some distance from Wrigleyville. Or perhaps there's also an establishment by that name close to the park?

Irv (talk) 02:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, High Tops was bought by the group and is now Harry Caray's Tavern206.81.51.187 (talk) 15:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


As I did yesterday, I am going to semi-protect this page until the end of the season. We had a lot of bad editing last year right after the clincher. We should clinch in the next couple of days. This will only be a temporary protection. If anyone has a problem with this, note that here or leave me a message on my talk page.Wjmummert (KA-BOOOOM!!!!) 16:03, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Only admins can protect a page. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Rivalry with the Cardinals[edit]

Am I the only person who finds it a bit odd that the St. Louis Cardinals are mentioned all of 4 times on this page, none of which even acknowledge the fact that the Cubbies have a rivalry dating back to 1885 (or so) with them? Just seems odd, since you can't be a Cubs or Cards fan without having a near religious hatred of the other team (and/or its fans).... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Flags hanging over Wrigley Field[edit]

It is stated that the retired numbers hang on flags on the foul poles, but Jackie Robinson's number 42 does not. I don't know why this says this, but I'm removing Robinson's number. I think the Cubs only post numbers of their players. Write here if you think I'm wrong.--poketape 04:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Poketape (talkcontribs)

The article should clarify that 42 does not fly at Wrigley, but it's still a retired number. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 04:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Important Figures[edit]

I mean c'mon, are Geovany Soto and Jim Edmonds really "important figures" of the Chicago Cubs franchise? This team has been around for 130 years. I'm not too sure if a guy who's been there for only a year should be listed as an "important figure." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamedog18 (talkcontribs) 21:21, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Rivalry Section?[edit]

I think that the page should have a section added for rivalries, Most sports team pages do and as some one said earlier it'd be a good place to put information about rivalries with the Cardinals and Sox, such as brief notes such as the historical rivalry with St. Louis and the 1906 World Series and the tied 33-33 Sox-Cubs record. Its just seems like an important thing to have in the article rivalries are a big part of sports. (talk) 05:26, 22 October 2008 (UTC)Oct 22, 2008

Retired Numbers[edit]

I think that 31 should be removed from the retired numbers section although it may have been reserved it is not an official retired number. Rwhollywoodfan (talk) 04:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


The template correctly says founded 1870. One category should be revised to "Sports clubs established in 1870". P64 (talk) 14:29, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Cubs Postseason Record - Worst of the Original 16 Major League Teams...[edit]

I think the article can be improved by adding the following verifiable factual information on the Cubs postseason record:

At 28-55-1, the Cubs have won fewer postseason games in their history than any of the 16 original major leage teams, and their win percentage of .337 is also the lowest. They have won only two World Series games at Wrigley Field, by Lon Warnecke in Game 5 in 1935 and Hank Borowy in Game 6 in 1945, and have lost the last three games in each of their other six postseason appearances between 1932 and 2008.

```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Garbanzo28 (talkcontribs) 04:06, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Go away, Cardinals and/or Sox fan. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
That is the funniest thing that I have ever heard to be added to improve an article. Sweet Pea 1981 (talk) 20:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm a Cubs fan, but I do not think that would be a bad change. The Cubs' poor post-season record is relevant to the team's history. The failure is also very important to Cubs fans. I'm glad that at least the article does mention their long championship drought. At least the first sentence belongs. Saros136 (talk) 17:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
Well, the article does mention, less directly than the record, the poor postseason performance. Saros136 (talk) 18:00, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Cory Provus[edit]

Cory Provus is no longer the pregame and postgame host. Judd Sirott has been hired after Provus accepted a position with Milwaukee. The article is locked, so I'm posting it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Nationality of Players[edit]

Given the fact that baseball is becoming an increasingly more international sport (i.e., more non-U.S. leagues in existence, more non-U.S. players in the MLB), the roster formatting on Wikipedia should probably be updated to reflect that. If you look at the formatting for other international sports (such as soccer), the player nationalities are indicated using flag icons. I think this would be a beneficial update to each of the major league rosters in the MLB, it would not be too difficult to implement and it would not clutter the information on the page. However, before such change a change is implemented, I thought it would be healthy to achieve at least some form of consensus on the talk page for each team. yuristache (talk) 01:10, July 24, 2010 (UTC)

My undo & redo of "future Hall Of Famer Ferguson Jenkins" wrong link?[edit]

I thought the "r" had been left outside of Hall of Fame by mistake, but then realized it had not. When I clicked on the link I was taken to I thought I had messed up the link, so I undid my changes to see if I had messed it up, but I hadn't. Is this the place where we want readers to be directed? Shouldn't the link be to: Ileanadu (talk) 21:40, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wrigley years (1921–1981)[edit]

Why are only 1921 to 1981 included as "The Wrigley Years"? If referring to Wrigley the owner, he died in 1932. The Cubs stayed in the family until 1981 P.K. Wrigley, when it was sold to the Tribune company in 1981, but that isn't ever mentioned in the article,and, since they still play at "Wrigley Field," readers might be a little confused. Ileanadu (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

1918 World Series fix?[edit]

FYI. Here is one article, from the Sporting News yesterday, Did Cubs throw 1918 World Series vs Red Sox?. There are many others on the web including at least one old one by or about the author of a book on the 1918 Red Sox. --P64 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Here is a NY Times article about the series fix: Whiff of Scandal Wafts Over 1918 World Series 104yearsandcounting (talk) 12:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Theo Epstein[edit]

Why does Theo's name keep being removed from the information bar? He is a prominent member of the organization and should be listed. The Marlins' page lists their president of baseball operations. Theo should be kept there. Thank you. Chicubsfan10 (talk) 00:20, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes he does deserve to be in the sidebar. He is the president for gods sake. Whomever is reverting it is possibly a hurt red sox fan. For those of you who don't know. The president is higher on the importance scale than the GM, as the GM refers to the president for the final decision. It seems there is a 2-0 consensus here. Unless there is a discussion. His name shall remain in the infobox from now on. PositivelyJordan (talk) 23:52, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
The position of president of baseball operations is a new creation in the Baseball industry to provide a level of management that provides high profile individuals, like Theo Epstein, a slot to move UP into. A lateral management move merely from one club to another is frowned upon. The fact that other articles about Major League clubs do not list Pres of BB operations is due to the fact that they, the clubs, have not felt the need to create the position. That should not prevent listing the job/employee in the articles of the clubs that have (created the position). Buster Seven Talk 04:53, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Here are teams that list the POBO in the infobox, Florida Marlins, Baltimore Orioles, Toronto Blue Jays, Atlanta Braves, Houston Astros, So you can throw that argument about not following guidelines out the window. There is no such thing. PositivelyJordan (talk) 00:16, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Full protection[edit]

I considered a variety of different solutions here, but decided that temporary (3 day) full protection was needed while you all sort this problem out. I do see a consensus above among local editors to include Epstein, but I also see the other editor indicating that there is a wider consensus (at the template) to not include it. I recommend engaging in some form of dispute resolution; probably the easiest next step is to open up a discussion at WT:WikiProject Baseball to see what other editors who cover this topic think. It would be far better to have an agreement that applies across all Baseball articles, not a franchise by franchise solution (though if the "general" agreement was to leave it up to individual pages, that would be fine as well). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

MikeWazoski refuses to discuss. and since the only people that agree with him seem to be ip users, I don't understand why he thinks his opinion is the only one that matters when we have reached consensus (albeit a small number of users).. Plus the erroneous allegations that he spews saying that the people who reached consensus on this page are all the same person is silly and doesn't solve anything. PositivelyJordan (talk) 19:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
If all of those other teams list the POBO's, there is no reason that the Cubs shouldn't, especially with someone as high profile as Theo Epstein. I agree completely with PositvielyJordan. Please make sure that our consensus remains in effect, there is no need for MikeWazoski or anyone else to keep reverting an edit that will in the end be changed back to what it should be. Thank you. Chicubsfan10 (talk) 00:29, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
And if MikeWazoski continues to refuse to discuss the issue but keeps reverting, then he'll rapidly get in trouble for WP:Edit warring. The full protection simply provides a short period of time where the edit warring stops (which is better for the article) and forces people to converse (hopefully). I have the article watchlisted, so if the edit warring resumes after the protection is gone, I may consider other solutions. Qwyrxian (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Checking the Cubs news at MLB.COM, the term "president of baseball operations" is repeatedly used in reference to Epstein's position. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:00, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Not sure why there was so much drama about this. Edit warring by MikeWazowski is very confusing. Not sure what he was attempting to accomplish with that.--JOJ Hutton 03:58, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Quick Question[edit]

I did a little edit here some months ago, and it appears too have been reverted (it would be out-of-date now anyway). It doesn't appear there has been much movement, other than mention of the Lester acquisition. Meanwhile, a member of the Board of Directors -- Tom R's brother Pete - has become governor of Nebraska. That has little to do witt t5he Cubs per se, but is there any interest in that as a curiosity? Thanks.--Daveler16 (talk) 17:23, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

5 months long enough to wait for a comment? I'll add the above in a day or two if no one objects. --Daveler16 (talk) 16:02, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

It might be worth adding to Ownership section or article. It's not a big impact on the Cubs history. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)