Talk:Cardinals-Cubs rivalry

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Cardinals-Cubs rivalry was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: September 18, 2006

Contents

[edit] "Friendly" Rivalry

For a long period, this was an amicable rivalry until the Dusty Baker/Tony LaRussa years produced a turning point on animosity. I think the article could be expanded to include this maybe even with a time line of key events throughout the rivalry.205.157.110.11 14:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a reference to this but I do think there could be more added. I think an important balance to maintain is the historical "friendly" nature and the modern day "intense" dislike but not going overboard in anyone direction. I tried to find some quotes from the 2003 season where Prior talks about hating the Cards and being disgusted by them and Steve Kline response about wanting someone to hit a line drive towards his head. I think any quotes in the negative about either team needs to be balanced with one from the other to best maintain NPOV. I think there is also a regional aspect in how this rivalry is view that needs to better represented. There is the "national view" (which obviously doesn't pay much attention compared to Yanks/Red Sox, then there is the Chicago View (which seems to mostly paint the rivalry as part of the bigger picture "lovable loser/cursed" outlook), the St. Louis view (which seems to look at it as more a 'sibling rivalry') and the Southern/Central IL which is (in just my opinion) where the brunt of the rivalry lies due to their middle ground location. I incorporated the Will's quote (sans his joking "Mama don't let your babies grow up to be Cubs fans" for NPOV sake) which alludes a little to the So/Cen part but I would like to see more there.Agne27 01:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comparison Points

We have the running total on the Win-Lose Series and mentioning of World Series & recent NL Central pennets but maybe we should also branch to include a chart with # of HOF, # of Playoff games/victories, Major Award winners, and maybe even some acculmated stats, etc. This would take the work of a hard core stat geek and someone more knowledgeable about wiki-code. But we can start to put the information in and maybe someone will follow up and make it look pretty. 205.157.110.11 14:58, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I can add a little but admittedly I have a huge bias towards my beloved Cardinals. I'll certainly try my best to for NPOV but I'll probably fail on a subconscious level. Hopefully some Cubbie fans will help to maintain the checks and balance. I do think the Cards/Cub Rivalry doesn't get anywhere near the respect of attention it should as a classic rivalry.Agne27 15:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of comparison points, in the section discussing All Time Stats leaders (Most Gold Gloves, RBI, Silver Sluggers, Etc.), there are statistics from before the modern era (circa 1900), most notably in the pitching section. These statistics should be removed in order to create a meaningful comparison.

[edit] Sharing a division title?

I edited the statement that the Astros and Cards shared the division title in 2001. MLB only awards each division to one team. There's no sharing.Politician818 14:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for not originally having a source in the article. I've corrected that. From the official web site of MLB Hall of Fame *The Cardinals and Astros were declared co-champions of the NL Central in 2001, based on their identical regular season record. Due to the fact that the Astros edged the Cardinals in head-to-head games, 9-7, they were seeded as the division winner in the post-season, and the Cardinals were seeded as the wild-card.. This is also listed on Houston's page. Both teams finished 2001 with identical records 93-69 records to win the division. Katy Feeney, MLB Senior Vice President of Schedulding also said (as quoted on a baseball site by a writer from the Toronto Sun) "It's basically the wild card, but it's also co-champions," [1] Agne27 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Additional Source from MLB.com on the cardinal page as part of the 2001 timeline The Cardinals finished 93-69 and co-owners of the first shared championship in major-league history " [2] As a historical first, the 2001 co-championship certainly deserves a place in a wikipedia articlesAgne27 17:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anyone have Pictures?

The article starting to look really good. Is there anyone here who is knowledgable about copy rights & public domain that could add a few pictures? Obviously the two team logos would be good, maybe the cover of some of the books Agne27 referenced? A picture of Hornsby could also work since he played for both teams. I've looked for a few but I don't feel comfortable about my knowledge of copy rights and what is allowed and not allowed. Also is it good Wiki-etiquette to use pictures from other Wiki articles. I would assume they are copy right safe (because of the GDFL) what is the proper format to do that? I mean do we link to the article, etc. Thanks again to everyone who has helped! 205.157.110.11 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Minor Plagarism

The recent anon edit that added in 2001 the Astros and Cardinals were declared co-champions of the NL Central, based on their identical regular season record. Due to the fact that the Astros edged the Cardinals in head-to-head games, 9-7, they were seeded as the division winner in the post-season, and the Cardinals were seeded as the wild-card. is word for word taken from the hall of fame website that I previously quoted. The footnote references the data not the actual word. If the author wants to directly quote it, he/she can rewrite it to properly reference it.

In my opinion, the previous version was sufficient because the reader could follow the footnote for more information if they like. In an article references the Cubs-Cardinals rivalry, the exact post season seeding of the Cardinals & Astros for a particular post season whose outcome was irrelevant for both teams. The only relevant point was the comparision of divisional success between the Cards & Cubs--all the other info is white noise. Now, in the National League Central Article, those details are highly relevant because of the scopre of that article. They're just not needed here. I will give the original author time to revert/reword his edit before I make changes myself. Agne27 16:55, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Since the anon editor hasn't revised the text to remove the plagarism, I essentially reverted it back to it's original form.Agne27 23:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

The Cardinals' website isn't a good enough source for them being co-champs in 2001. The Dodgers' and Red Sox articles also neglect to mention their co-championships (in 2006 & 2005 respectively).Politician818 19:35, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] ?Mets?

This is an article about the Cardinals-Cubs rivalry. Why is there a paragraph about there relationship to the Mets? It should be removed, which I will now do. Timpcrk87 02:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name Change?

It's been pointed on the Wikiproject Baseball that the I-55 series (at least the name) is not well known outside of the two markets. Maybe it's worth considering a name change? For notability reference...

  • Cubs-Cardinals Rivalry in quotes gets 757 ghits/ 2 ghits in Google News.
  • Cardinals-Cubs Rivalry in quotes gets 885 ghits/1 ghit in Google News
  • Cubs-Cardinals Series in quotes gets 744 ghits/1 ghit in Google News
  • Cardinals-Cubs Series in quotes get 771 ghits/1 ghit in Google News
  • I-55 Series in quotes (and -wikipedia) gets 530 ghits/ 0 google news
  • I-55 Rivalry in quotes (and -wikipedia) gets 199 ghits/ 0 google news

Any other thoughts/potential names? Agne 03:36, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


I don't think anyone in the two markets calls it the I-55 series on a regular basis. I would be in favor of one of the first two choices, noting that you play series against every team, but only rivalries against some. Timpcrk87 00:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Since nobody else has contributed to this discussion, I moved the article myself to what I consider to be the ideal name for the article Cardinals-Cubs rivalry. It follow the precedent of Yankees-Red Sox rivalry and Dodgers-Giants rivalry, is in alphabetical order, and has the most google hits listed above. I fixed any redirect problems as well.Timpcrk87 20:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article status

In response to Agne's call for input on improvements, I've got the following ideas:

  1. I think it would be neat to change the "Statistical comparison" to a table, and the team with the advantage could be shaded/bolded for a quick visual picture.
  2. Need to work in a link from the Cardinals page. (Cubs has one already.)
  3. This isn't important, but I like shorter lead sections (putting TOC nearer to top of page). Could we come up with a section heading for paragraphs 2-4?
--Spiffy sperry 23:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! I fixed the Card's link and also added a couple links from other articles. I also reworked the intro page to make it more concise and to the point. I agree that the overall presentation with the shorter intro looks better. As for the tables, I would personally love that idea but I am a complete dud when it comes to wiki-code. I wonder if the Wikiproject Baseball guys could help? Agne 00:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I took a shot at the table thing. I didn't shade the strikeout category, because I that's one neither team wants to win. I hope the colors are OK. I think red and blue would have been too dark, so I went with lighter versions. --Spiffy sperry 05:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I love it! Thank you. :) Agne 15:35, 24 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 18, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Pass, in terms of the current content.
2. Factually accurate?: Fail How do I know if the lists are up to date?
3. Broad in coverage?: Fail Who coined the term, why is this concept still alive today. A possible criticisims section?
4. Neutral point of view?: Pass
5. Article stability? Pass
6. Images?: Pass but I would expect more when this article is expanded.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --Tarret 23:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Usually the only games that sell out?

The article says "These games are usually the first games of the season to sell out in Chicago and St. Louis. ". The Cardinals and Cubs sell out almost every game of the season, exspecially the first month. That statement makes no sense at all...

In addition, Jason Marquis has now played for both teams as well.

One other thing, there are some bad sentences in the "Break in the action" paragraph.


[edit] Another break in the action

On Sunday, April 29th, 2007, Josh Hancock passed away. The game scheduled to be on Sunday Night Baseball (ESPN HD) has been postponed.

Just a note in passing regarding the section entitled A Break in the Rivalry. Both of these deaths were certainly tragic, but I have to ask how this pertains specifically to a rivalry between the Cubs and the Cardinals. In over 100 years, have no other games had to be postponed or rescheduled between them for other reasons - weather, war, national tragedy, politics? If so, then really, these two occurrences are coincidental and aren't relevant to the article. If not, then that's the most amazing thing in baseball history.Wildhartlivie 18:37, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to reiterate my reservations about this section of the article. Apparently no one involved with the article has bothered to address this in a month's time, one way or the other. I don't feel the subject of this section is relevant to the overall history of this rivalry. Everything in it is tragic but coincidental and ultimately does NOT effect the outcome of games upon this rivalry. The games are rescheduled and played, it does not effect the record, and it's basically just fanboy information. Further, none of it is cited in any way. The section is truly a candidate for deletion. Wildhartlivie 18:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, I wouldn't shed a tear if the section went away. However, I will note that there is substantial uniqueness to the situations of having two heated rivals "bonded" by tragedy. It was unfortunate moments like that when fans and teams realize there is more to life then just a baseball game. By far one of the "classiest" moments (though sad) in baseball had to be Joe Giradi's announcement at Wrigley Field following Kile's death. With the exception of the mass cancellation of baseball following Sept 11th, two rivals have never had to cancel games for so tragic of reasons and the fact that it happened twice is astounding. AgneCheese/Wine 19:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
While it may be astounding, as a statistics major I can tell you that I'm more surprised it hasn't happened before. While ballplayers are not in an age group where deaths happen frequently, they do happen during the season. The baseball schedule is such that "rivals" play each other frequently. There are a lot of baseball games every year. This really is not a remarkable event, and in 10 years no one will remember it. At best, it's worth a single line in an article about the season. (And this from a die-hard Cubs fan.)--Fabrictramp 19:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure about that (re: 10 year thing). I'm more or less ambivalent to the Yankees but I still remember the shock with Thurman Munson plane crash and that was almost 30 years ago. While Hancock's death was less shocking (drunk driving), I think Kile's is certainly up there with Munson's (as ESPN would concur). It certainly had an added impact with the rivalry. All the venom and tension between the two teams and fan bases just took a complete back seat following that tragedy and really subsided as a whole till the Dusty Baker flare ups a few years later. AgneCheese/Wine 23:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

As I said, the deaths are certainly tragic, and if games were cancelled by agreement due to sudden deaths of members of one or the other team, that's a credit to the respect the teams have for one another. Having said that, it didn't have an effect on the overall rivalry, or the win-loss record. If there are no objections, I think this section should be deleted, but a note in one of the other sections about the showing of mutual respect is probably quite appropriate. Wildhartlivie 05:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The game being postponed due to the death has nothing to do with the rivalry. Major League Baseball decided that it would be best for everybody, fans, players, staff, the league, etc., that the game wouldn't be played solely because of how difficult it would be for the players to clear their minds. For example, the Twins/Royals game which was postponed because of the bridge collapse. They postponed the game the following day because of the tragedy, not because of the rivalry.
Ergo, it is nothing more than pure irony that both the Hancock and Kyle deaths occured before Cardinals/Cubs games, and using the Twins/Royals postponement as an example, the games were postponed only because of the tragedy, and has nothing to do with any particular rivalry, and any section in this article which alludes to the assumption that the tragedy added to the rivalry shouldn't have any place in the article. Ksy92003(talk) 05:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I deleted this section as it appears we have a general consensus about its relevance. Wildhartlivie 05:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)