|
Here we go! With two of MLB's oldest -- and longest-suffering -- franchises set to begin the Fall Classic on Tuesday night, we asked writers Christina Kahrl, David Schoenfield and Dan Szymborski to weigh in on the cities of Chicago and Cleveland, including everything from the Cubs' and Indians' fan bases to Michael versus LeBron to the best restaurants and movies. Which fan base deserves a World Series title more? Dan Szymborski: I'd actually say the Indians here. Although Cubs fans have gone longer without a World Series title, they have a storied franchise with a lot of history to be proud of, and the whole "lovable losers" thing has taken on a life of its own. And there's this: The Cubs are the most likely team in baseball to win the next few World Series. There's a good chance they'll be back. Cleveland has had long runs of being wretched as well, but over many of those stretches, the Indians weren't endearingly bad -- just depressingly bad. There's a reason the writers of "Major League" chose the Indians. David Schoenfield: This is clear: Indians fans have suffered way more than Cubs fans. First of all, nobody reading this was alive in 1908, so Cubs fans don't get extra credit for suffering through more title-less years. Plus, for the most part, the Cubs have been simply irrelevant for the past 70 years, with periodic bursts of surprise playoff seasons. In fact, from 1951 to 1967, the White Sox outdrew the Cubs every season except one. The Cubs didn't really become a "thing" until the 1984 season. Since then, they've made the playoffs seven times (before this year) and finished better than .500 12 times. The Indians had great teams throughout the 1950s, only to finish behind the Yankees many of those years, and they've made the playoffs eight times and finished better than .500 14 times since 1995. They reached two World Series with those great teams of the '90s. They've been closer to a championship more times with better teams than the Cubs have, and that kind of suffering is more painful than just being lousy. Plus, Game 7 of the 1997 World Series trumps the Bartman game.  Christina Kahrl: I'd say Cleveland fans, but I'm biased because I have a whole bunch of family in Ohio who root for the Indians and a dad whose interest in the game as a kid was apparently derailed by the team's 1954 World Series loss. He picked the Browns as the less likely source of heartbreak, which sort of captures in a nutshell the reason it has to be Cleveland.
Who do you think is the better manager: Joe Maddon or Terry Francona?  Szmborski: That's unbelievably close, as they're two of the best managers in baseball. I think I'd say Francona. Maddon is amazing, but Francona has had much greater challenges this year, up to and including the playoffs, and I'll use the recency bias to break the tie. Kahrl: No slight to Maddon, but I'm going with Tito. What Francona has done with what he's had to work with the past four years with the Indians is remarkable. With Michael Brantley out for most of this year, Francona's outfield situation was a jumble that is arguably stronger as a result of the fixes. Batting Carlos Santana leadoff against right-handers yielded both his best power production and lowest strikeout rate of his career across a career high in at-bats. Francona has milked tremendous value from some variegated bullpens. Maddon is brilliant, but Francona is arguably the best in the game at adapting to what he has and making it work. Schoenfield: Last time I checked, Francona has two World Series rings versus none for Maddon. Plus, Maddon has the best rotation in baseball, the best defense, the best group of young stars, the best depth and one of the best closers. Francona has a pitcher who plays with drones.
Who is the best Indians player who never played in a World Series? What about for the Cubs? Szymborski: Well, because Bob Feller did get to play in one (in 1948), I think Nap Lajoie is the easy Indians choice. I'll go with Ernie Banks for the Cubs, by a hair over Ron Santo. Schoenfield: Ernie Banks for the Cubs, though Santo and Ryne Sandberg had higher career WAR. For the Indians, most of their great players have at least appeared in a World Series. How about Sam McDowell, one of the great left-handers of the 1960s, who led the AL in strikeouts five times? Kahrl: For the Indians, I'd consider Mel Harder because 223 wins in a career that ended in 1947 -- just before the team's most recent World Series win in 1948 -- is sort of a glum circumstance to ponder. But I'll say Nap Lajoie, the star second baseman whose jump to the American League in the dead-ball era helped create the World Series -- and then he never got to play in one. For the Cubs, it has to be Santo. At least Billy Williams got to the postseason (with the A's as a DH in 1975). Santo never even got that much out of a career that should have put him in the Hall of Fame decades ago.
What's your favorite movie about Chicago? How about Cleveland?Kahrl: I'm going with "Eight Men Out" for Chicago. It has well-staged baseball action, the 1919 fix and Chicago's own Studs Terkel as sportswriter Hugh Fullerton. It is one of the best baseball movies of all time, and it battles "A League of Their Own" and the original "Bad News Bears" for best ever. For Cleveland, it's slim pickings, but I'll avoid the obvious baseball flick and go with "American Splendor" because there's a lot of Cleveland in it, beyond the film's entertaining look at the life and work of comic book writer Harvey Pekar. Szymborski: As a Gen-Xer, there's no way I go with anything other than "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" for Chicago. As a baseball fan, there's no way I can't pick "Major League" for Cleveland.  Schoenfield: For Chicago, it's "The Untouchables." As Sean Connery says about trying to get Al Capone, "He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way." For Cleveland: "A Christmas Story." OK, it's set in some fictional town in Indiana, but it was filmed in Cleveland. That's good enough for me.
Your favorite restaurants in both places?Szymborski: It has been a few years since I've been to Cleveland, but I really enjoy L'Albatros. I'm a sucker for a good terrine or duck confit. I was sad I didn't get to visit Michael Symon's Lolita before the fire; he's putting a new concept into the former location. I've spent more time in Chicago, and though I've been to a few of the Michelin-starred places, I'd say Rick Bayless' Frontera Grill. Schoenfield: Not sure for either location, but I'm on the record that the proper term is "casserole," not "pizza," in Chicago. Kahrl: I'm still in mourning for my long-since-closed Chicago favorite, Erwin, a spot near Wrigley Field that I could take baseball foodie friends to and leave them suitably impressed. In its absence, I'm partial to Glenn's Diner or grabbing a great representative from among the world's best pizza from R Public House in my neighborhood. Cleveland? I'll have to pass because I've never eaten anywhere there more than once.
Finally: Michael or LeBron? Schoenfield: Jordan. We'll pretend those Wizards seasons never happened. Szymborski: It's gotta be Michael Jordan. Although they've patched things up since then, LeBron's departure left a lot of sore Cleveland residents for a few years. Kahrl: For what they mean to the cities they played in, I'm going with LeBron. The Cavaliers' winning it all is, for Cleveland, a bigger deal than the Bulls' winning was. I might not agree with Mike Ditka on most things, but he was right that the '85 Bears were a bigger deal for Chicago than all six NBA titles the Bulls won. The only thing that can put the memory of the '85 Bears in the shade? The Cubs winning the World Series.
|
