User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.1447 seconds
44 querie(s) executed

Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Dag Nabbit apealing [sic] his own check swing Posted: December 16, 2006 at 03:48 AM (#2262942)In half his dozen starts the Cubs scored 0-2 runs. Admittedly, he didn't help his own cause much with some uncharacteristic weak hitting.
Also, his ERA+ was especially impressive given that 5 of his 12 starts came against the Cards and Dodgers, both of whom won over two-thirds their game that year. Also, the Cards were in the midst of an all-time great pennant run, winning 41 of their last 48. Warneke's 3 starts against his old club all came in that stretch. The Cubs, not surpisingly, lost all those games.
UER did help Warneke's numbers, though.
Departing Veterans—None, really. The Cubs probably kept more pre-war players in 1942 than all the other NL teams.
Did you check the rest of the NL before saying that? The best player in the league who missed 1942 was a guy nicknamed "Losing Pitcher." The AL lost some starts - Greenberg, Feller - but the NL wouldn't be affected until later in the war. There is a reason why the Cubs posted a worse record in '42 than in '41.
Although the Cubs tried their best to get Passeau his 20th win in September, he fell just short.
Both his last starts were against those supersurging Cards. Bummer. He actually won the first for his nineteenth victory. 38,000+ came out to that game in Wrigley in late September with the team well out of the race. I can't imagine that many Cardinals fans would make that trip back then with fuel rationing beginnings. I guess it was the pennant race, though. Must've had good weather, too. Two days later 3,000 showed to see the Reds sweep a doubleheader from the Flubbies.
The best player in the league who missed 1942 was a guy nicknamed "Losing Pitcher." The AL lost some starts - Greenberg, Feller - but the NL wouldn't be affected until later in the war. There is a reason why the Cubs posted a worse record in '42 than in '41.
Yeah, the AL lost more guys in '42 than the NL. My point was that the Cubs didn't lose *anyone* for most of the year. (Johnny Schmitz enlisted toward the end of the season, but that's it.) I believe I read articles saying that all the other NL teams at least lost someone, even if they weren't stars.
As for Passeau, by the end of the season, the Cubs were just playing out the string and didn't have too many things to shoot for. They got looks at still more youngsters, most of whom didn't stick (Cy Block, Whitey Platt, Marv Rickert, Paul Gillespie), though Hank Wyse was a key man on the staff over the next 4 seasons. Basically, getting 20 wins for Passeau was about it.
Of course, there was another consideration: After being behind by as many as 10 games on August 5, the Cardinals caught fire over the rest of the season, going 43-9 the rest of the way, including winning 5 of 6 against the Dodgers.
By the time the Cubs squared off against the Cardinals for a doubleheader in Wrigley on September 20, they were up 2.5 games on the Dodgers with just eight to play -- four against the Cubs and two each against the Pirates and Reds. The Dodgers, meanwhile, were facing the bottom of the league -- six against the Phillies, two against the Braves, and one against the Giants.
The Cubs clearly would have an impact on the pennant race. Indeed, the last day was yet another doubleheader -- if the Cubs had swept, the Dodgers and Cardinals would go to a 3-game playoff. Weeks earlier, Jimmie Wilson was quite adamant that he would play his regulars against the Cardinals and although they only played Brooklyn once in September, they threw Warneke at them, winning 10-2.
I think you can lead them all off that way, can't you?? When was the last STABLE year they had? Maybe under Durocher, but I think you have to go all the way back to Veeck, Sr, like you did for this article.
Great articles, can't wait to see where we end up next!
As for the "transition year" label, what I meant was that 1942 was a year in which the team was still coming off their success in '38, dealing with all the turbulence of World War II, and eventually (after '45) will end up just lousy.
By contrast, I wouldn't say that 1952 was a "transition year"; it was just bad. In my mind, "transition" may or may not mean "rebuilding," but it absolutely doesn't mean "bad." 2004 was a "transition year"; 2006 just sucked.
A very interesting article. But the last sentence should say Larry McPhail, not Branch Rickey. Rickey came to the Dodgers after the 1942 season. In fact, Rickey's sale of Warneke could have cost the Cards the pennant (although it obviously did not)
Hopefully the trip to SABR will get dJF's creative juices flowing for another one.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main