2016 Cubs could be one of MLB's best ever teams

[cubsmann]

With their season about a third of the way over, the Cubs are on pace to win 111 games, and they would need only five more to match the all-time record, held jointly by the 1906 Chicago Cubs and the 2001 Seattle Mariners (the 1906 Cubs did it in just 152 games, as opposed to the 162 game schedule used today, thus making their achievement all the more remarkable). So why the doubters when I say this team could be one of the best in MLB history?

 

[Omeletpants]

The 1939 Yankees had 5 HOF players. THis team will never match that

 

[cubsmann]

It just might. You never know man. This team could easily produce at least a couple of HOF'ers when its all said and done.

Its really hard to say when the average age of the team is about 24. Are you even a Cubs fan?

 

[Omeletpants]

It just might. You never know man. This team could easily produce at least a couple of HOF'ers when its all said and done.

Its really hard to say when the average age of the team is about 24. Are you even a Cubs fan?

A couple is not 5.

We were having a nice discussion then you had to turn it into an insult. So FU. When I read your shit I see a lot of blind homerism. Being a fan doesn't mean you are required to say stupid, mindless cheerleader shit. If you think this team is the 1939 Yankees you are nuts.

 

[beckdawg]

The 1939 Yankees had 5 HOF players. THis team will never match that

There were only 16 teams in the league back then. Hardly comparing apples to apples there...

 

[DJMoore_is_fat]

The 1939 Yankees had 5 HOF players. THis team will never match that

I can think of 11 sure fire HOF'ers.

1) Arrieta
2) Rizzo
3) Zobrist
4) Russell
5) J-Hey
6) Hendricks
7) Soler
8) Almora Jr
9) Warren
10) Rondon
11) Maddon

 

[Omeletpants]

There were only 16 teams in the league back then. Hardly comparing apples to apples there...

and there were half as many people in the country then

 

[SilenceS]

and there were half as many people in the country then

Way to over populate in your generation dicklicker

 

[cubsmann]

A couple is not 5.

We were having a nice discussion then you had to turn it into an insult. So FU. When I read your shit I see a lot of blind homerism. Being a fan doesn't mean you are required to say stupid, mindless cheerleader shit. If you think this team is the 1939 Yankees you are nuts.

Jeez man take a pill. WTF is your problem? Do you know what MLB was in 1939? The county was in the Depression and NO BLACK PEOPLE COULD PLAY BASEBALL. You really think a league that excluded black and latino players could even hold a candle to a great team today? Did you ever see the 39 Yankees play? I didn't think so.

 

[beckdawg]

and there were half as many people in the country then

And basketball and football weren't dominating the sports landscape for premier athletes not to mention the leagues were segregated. The point here being the two are frankly incomparable. Anything pre-1969 is fairly pointless to compare to present day baseball. Granted the comment was best "ever" so I get why you'd bring them up but as I said, I think in general it's fruitless to make such comparisons. It's a different game. Hell, even comparing to 1969 era teams might not be right but at least it's closer.

 

[cubsmann]

I can think of 11 sure fire HOF'ers.

1) Arrieta
2) Rizzo
3) Zobrist
4) Russell
5) J-Hey
6) Hendricks
7) Soler
8) Almora Jr
9) Warren
10) Rondon
11) Maddon

Fucking A bro. This prick isn't even a Cubs fan. What the hell are you doing on a Cubs fan site if you don't love the Cubs???

 

[SilenceS]

Welcome to the board Cubsmann, but I would tone it down a couple of notches. Get to know posters and what they do. This is a fun site, but some people are going to disagree. Ommy is a special poster and older than all of us combined. His age can only be counted like rings on a tree.

 

[Omeletpants]

And basketball and football weren't dominating the sports landscape for premier athletes not to mention the leagues were segregated. The point here being the two are frankly incomparable. Anything pre-1969 is fairly pointless to compare to present day baseball. Granted the comment was best "ever" so I get why you'd bring them up but as I said, I think in general it's fruitless to make such comparisons. It's a different game. Hell, even comparing to 1969 era teams might not be right but at least it's closer.

Then it wont be long before Michael Jordan will be excluded as the best of all time

you compare players of different generations by how they dominated their peers.

 

[Omeletpants]

Welcome to the board Cubsmann, but I would tone it down a couple of notches. Get to know posters and what they do. This is a fun site, but some people are going to disagree. Ommy is a special poster and older than all of us combined. His age can only be counted like rings on a tree.

Cubsmann is a special poster with The Fire and The Passion to carry this team to the World Series and the rightful recognition as the GREATEST TEAM OF ALL TIME and anyone that doubts that is not a Cub's fan.

 

[cubsmann]

Welcome to the board Cubsmann, but I would tone it down a couple of notches. Get to know posters and what they do. This is a fun site, but some people are going to disagree. Ommy is a special poster and older than all of us combined. His age can only be counted like rings on a tree.

Thanks my friend. Im not trying to step on anyone's toes but Im going to stand up for myself when someone calls what i say stupid and tells me to go **** myself. I hope you understand.

 

[cubsmann]

Cubsmann is a special poster with The Fire and The Passion to carry this team to the World Series and the rightful recognition as the GREATEST TEAM OF ALL TIME and anyone that doubts that is not a Cub's fan.

Relax man and go take your medication. Your panties are getting in a wad.

 

[beckdawg]

I would assume the greatest teams would be those who dominated their eras. Its pretty dumb to compare great teams from the past as if they were playing today's teams, and then concluding that present-day teams are better. The 1940's Bears were one of the most dominant teams in NFL history, but you transport them to 2016 and they lose to every team in the league, because HOF LG Dan Fortmann is 6-0 210 lbs he is having difficulty holding off 6-4 310 lbs Ndamukong Suh. Its not really a sports 'argument', its just basic human evolution.

Relative to this thread, I think its safe to say that the 1939 Yankees were "greater" than the 2016 Brewers, even though the Brewers have black and Latino players.

I'm not 100% sure if you're agreeing with me here but I tend to agree with what you're saying. Another aspect of all this I forgot to mention was FA. It's was a lot easier to keep good talent then because they didn't have much recourse. That's why to me comparing HOF to a present day team makes little sense. If you're going the route that the 39 yankees were better and you don't feel like I do that comparing era's this far apart is folly, then I'd suggest using run differential. That 39 team was the highest to my knowledge in MLB history and they were something like +2.7/g if memory serves. The current cubs are +2.5/g I believe. At least run differential is more about how teams played against their era and how much better they were than that era.

 

[Washington]

1969 Cubs had 4 HOF players and choked away the pennant.

I was a kid then and cried like a baby when that season ended. It still stings to an extent when you look at the talent on that team.

Until a team wins a division (this team has not done that yet - 3rd place last year - but will this year) and championships, they don't get included in best team ever discussions. You never hear about the Patriots team that went undefeated but lost in the Super Bowl as being a best-team-ever. It all comes down to championships won. If GS doesn't win it all this year, breaking the Bulls' single season record means nothing.

 

[CubsWin]

1969 Cubs had 4 HOF players and choked away the pennant.

True, but one of them, Ernie Banks, was 38 and at the end of his career and didn't play at a hall-of-fame level that season. (.253 average, .725 OPS) He was especially bad in September that season. Actually the whole team was bad in September except for Billy Williams. And the Mets just didn't lose much in September with that stellar pitching staff.

Still, a lot of talent, and it's too bad they didn't win. Maybe if they hadn't traded Lou Brock a few years earlier. That would've been 5 hall-of-famers.

 

[Washington]

True, but one of them, Ernie Banks, was 38 and at the end of his career and didn't play at a hall-of-fame level that season. (.253 average, .725 OPS) He was especially bad in September that season. Actually the whole team was bad in September except for Billy Williams. And the Mets just didn't lose much in September with that stellar pitching staff.

And coincidentally, look what the Mets' stellar pitching staff did to us in the playoffs last year. Great pitching trumps great hitting. One never knows come playoff time what can happen that is why it is premature to call this team the best ever regardless of how many games it wins in the regular reason.