Skip to main content

Wrigley Field 100

Wrigley Field, Chicago
On April 23, 2015 Chicago Cubs fans will celebrate 101 years of Wrigley Field, could this be 'next year'? Click to see video on YouTube.

During the dog-days of summer baseball fans come to the stark realization their team has been mathematically eliminated from the pennant race. And the chant begins again, “Wait till next year.” Cub fans have been waiting since 1908. Yes, believe it, 1908 was when the Cubs won their last World Series. Way before television, long before radio, and by a fluke of what baseball fanatics call Merkle’s Boner.

For those not familiar with the story, now that I think of it, not many people I know today were there to witness the twist of fate that allowed the Cubs the opportunity to win the National League Pennant that year then the World Series.

The heated race for the Pennant came down to the Cubs vs the New York Giants.

It was the bottom of the ninth, with two men out, two men on base, and the score tied one-to-one, veteran Giant pinch-hitter Moose McCormick was on third, representing the winning run.

Fred Merkle was the runner on first.

Giant shortstop, Al Bridwell, hit a single. At the crack of the bat Fred Merkle headed for second. Moose McCormick lumbered home. The Giants had apparently won the game 2-1.

Giant fans poured onto the field in elation. Alarmed by the crowd bering down on him, and convinced the game was over, Merkle did not touch second, and ran straight to the clubhouse. However, the rules state that since Merkle did not touch second if Cubs second baseman, Johnny Evers, who saw the situation unfold, could get the ball, touch second, then Merkle would be out. Bridwell’s winning run would be canceled by the force-out. The Cubs would have a chance.

Sounds simple enough, but the “winning” ball had been tossed into the stands. A fan in a brown bowler caught it and started home with his trophy. Two Cubs chased the man through the raucous crowd, knocked him down, grabbed the ball, threw it to Joe Tinker, who relayed it to Evers at second. 

Merkle was out.

Both teams now claimed victory. It took Harry Pulliam, the league president, a full week to disallow the Giant run and declare the game a tie, to force a replay if the two teams were deadlocked for the season. As fate would have it they were.

The Cubs went on to win the pennant from the Giants that year and then swept the Detroit Tigers in four games to win the 1908 World Series.

According to Tyler Poslosky from Bleacherreport.com, “Since winning back-to-back titles in 1907-08, the Cubs appeared in the World Series seven times over the next 37 years, losing all of them.”

Poslosky records, “In 1910, the Cubs lost 4-1 to the then-Philadelphia Athletics. In 1918, the Cubs fell to the Boston Red Sox 4-1. Philadelphia got the best of Chicago a second time in the 1929 World Series, winning 4-1. In 1932, the New York Yankees swept the Cubs, 4-0. Three years later, Detroit got revenge, winning 4-2. In the 1938 series, the Yankees triumphed again with another four-game sweep of the Cubs. And in 1945, the Cubs lost to the Tigers in seven games.”

So let me ask you this, with Wrigley field turning 100 what quirk of fate will break the loosing streak and reveal this years winner? Is it the magic, or curse of baseball? With 162 games to be played what will the defining game be that turns everything around for the team? I’m convinced this is what keeps loyal baseball fans coming back to stadiums like Wrigley year after year.

This could be next year for the Cubbies!

Let’s wait and see . . .
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Most Popular of All Time

Time Travel, Roving Mics, and Muscle Memory

In this episode, the 2026 Sinkankas Symposium. Let’s get one thing straight: I didn’t arrive in a DeLorean. No flux capacitor, no dramatic lightning strike—just a Saturday parking pass and a name badge. And yet, somewhere between the rotunda doors and the first handshake, it happened anyway. This past Saturday, April 25th, I was transported—effortlessly and completely—back in time at the 20th Annual Sinkankas Symposium on the GIA campus in Carlsbad. Walking into that magnificent main campus rotunda early with my colleagues, Paul Mattlin and Glenn Wargo, felt like wrapping myself in a familiar, gem-encrusted blanket. It was less a building, more a family living room where nobody ever really forgets your name. The halls were quiet (a rare and beautiful thing), and the soft echo of our footsteps on the polished floors sounded exactly as I remembered it. For a moment, it wasn’t 2026—it was April 1997, my first time walking onto the beautiful, brand-new GIA campus as Director of Alumni. Som...
Post a Comment
Read more

Confidently Wrong: The Art of the AI Tall Tale

In this episode, A chat with Adamas the Chef on hidden recipes causing digital hallucinations. Pull up a chair and pour yourself a fresh cup of coffee—and please, for your own sake, taste it first. We need to have a quiet chat about why your computer sometimes decides to reinvent reality with the confidence of a five-star chef who has clearly lost his mind. In the world of technology, we call it a  hallucination . It sounds pretty dramatic, doesn’t it? As if the computer decided to ignore your instructions altogether in favor of a vivid, technicolor imagination that simply hasn’t met reality yet. But in truth, an AI hallucination isn’t a breakdown; it’s just a very confident, very polite mistake. Think of it like our friend Adamas , the Chef. Adamas is a master of the kitchen, but he is also a bit of a romantic who refuses to say “I don’t know.” When you ask him for a classic recipe he hasn’t made in years, he doesn’t stop to consult a cookbook—that’s far too pedestrian. Instead, ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Ode To Gemology

For over 80 years, students of gemology have struggled with spectrums, bewildered by birefringence, and simply plagued by pleochroism. The following sonnet is guaranteed to bring a smile to your face, a glow to your heart, and a simple reminder that students of life and gemology rediscover nature's gifts every day.  Ode to Gemology , by a GIA on-campus student. Dispersion, fire, adventurescence. Orient, sheen, or iridescence. Refractive index, high or low. The luster should indicate that, you know. Polarization, double or single. What to do now, they intermingle. Pleochroic colors you really should see. Was that only two, or actually three? Birefringence should help you a lot. Use your polarizer and watch the spot. Now, did it jump most on low or high? Sure, you can get it if you really try! Your liquids should be an aid, I think. Does it float, suspend, or slowly sink? Just use your imagination now. (He doesn't see me wiping my brow.) Solid inclusions or only bubbles? Huh, th...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Cowardice of Corporate Jargon

Picture this: an email lands in your inbox. A colleague—maybe even a friend—needs a favor, a second set of eyes, a moment of your time. You sigh, stare at the glow of your monitor, and type: “I’d love to help, but I just don’t have the bandwidth right now.” Hit send. Problem solved. Conscience clear. Except it shouldn’t be. Most of us have said or sent that line at least once, hoping it would land gently. On the surface, it’s perfect—efficient, polite, even self-aware. And that’s exactly the problem. It lets you decline without ever quite telling the truth. You didn’t just say no; you softened the discomfort of being human until it barely felt like a feeling at all. Instead of admitting, I’m overwhelmed , or I don’t have the energy , you reach for the sterile vocabulary of a server room. You turn a feeling into a metric. A boundary into a system limitation. Apologies, my data transfer rate is capped. Please submit a ticket to my emotional help desk. It’s a clever little trick—and an un...
Post a Comment
Read more