|
|
5 of 6 people found the following review helpful:
Lovable Losers, May 15, 2001
Part of the mystic of the Chicago Cubs is that they have not been to a World Series since 1945 and haven't won one since the beginning of the 20th century. Most of those years, they haven't even been competitive, but the fans still fill up Wrigley Field game after game. They know the Cubbies aren't going to win, in fact they expect to lose. David Claerbaut's book focuses on the years of 1967-1972 when the Cubs put together the most impressive team in baseball, yet never won a division, much less a World Series. Mr. Claerbaut, using statistics, all star appearances, future hall of famers on the roster and other items to show that those Cubs in fact are the greatest team to never win a championship. Mr. Claerbaut is from Milwaukee and was originally a Braves fan, but converted to the Cubs after the Braves won the 1957 series. He writes the book as a fan and it is clear he loves the legendary Leo "The Lip" Durocher. But once you get past the fanatic aspect, the book offers some great information on team that due to never making the playoffs, had never gotten the attention they deserved. If your a Cubs fan, then this book will definitely interest you. If you are a student of the game, you will enjoy it as well. It is a good, but not great read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
Why is this Collection of Cubs So Well Remembered?, May 30, 2006
Between 1967 and 1972 one of the best teams ever assembled played in the friendly confines of Wrigley Field in Chicago. The Cubs during those years were perennial favorites to win at least the National League championship. Anchored by three Hall of Fame players--Ernie Banks, Billy Williams, and Ferguson Jenkins--and a Hall of Fame manager, Leo Durocher, they should have dominated the league. They didn't. During that stretch, as the author of this interesting book notes, "The Cubs turned in 515 victories, finished second three times, never lower than third, but won not a single flag of any kind--not a World Series, not a pennant, not even a divisional championship" (p. 2).
David Claerbaut, a stathead and diehard Cubs fan, unravels why the Cubs failed during that six year period when it looked like everything was in the team's favor. No question, they had the best starting lineup in the National League. Ernie Banks at first, Glenn Beckert at second, Don Kessinger at shortstop, Ron Santo at third base, and Randy Hundley at catcher filled out the infield. Billy Williams and others secured the outfield, and a stellar pitching staff with three superb starters in Ferguson Jenkins, Bill Hands, and Ken Holtzman ensured the opposition did not score many runs. Regardless, they did not win.
Then there was 1969. The St. Louis Cardinals had cruised to the National League championship in both 1967 and 1968, but in 1969 the Cubs burst out of the gate and no one believed they could be caught. On September 3 the Cubs led the second place New York Mets by five games, with 26 left to play and more than half of them at Wrigley Field. The Mets caught them, taking 23 of their last 30 games, and won the National League East by eight games. Meantime, the Cubs went 8 and 18. It was a stupendous collapse, one worthy of memorialization in song and story.
Claerbaut offers a useful inquiry into why the Cubs collapsed in 1969. He finds that their offense failed, their defense failed, and most importantly their will power failed. Durocher deserves major credit for the debacle. He refused to rest his stars and pushed them to their limits. Most important, he rode his veterans until they were ready to drop. He feuded with everyone--many of the players, virtually all of the sportswriters, and even the fans. His antics created tension everywhere. As Claerbaut concludes: "When people perform in a tense atmosphere, are tired, are led ineffectively, and are then unprepared emotionally for a major challenge, they are likely to collapse. They are likely to choke" (p. 129). The Cubs proved that truth in 1969.
The Cubs remained a superb team for several years after the 1969 season but never challenged for the National League East in the same way again. The Cincinnati Reds and the Pittsburgh Pirates emerged as the class of the league and dominated the early years of the 1970s. The team dispersed many of its players to other teams and in 1972 Durocher was finally fired as manager. Seemingly, Durocher's departure raised the Cubs of this era to an immortal status. Claerbaut notes that while there have been very good Cubs teams since 1972, some with Hall of Fame ballplayers and with division titles in 1984, 1989, and 2003, none have captured the imagination of fans more effectively than this collection of players that never reached the playoffs. Banks, Beckert, Callison, Hands, Hickman, Holtzman, Hundley, Jenkins, Kessinger, Regan, Santo, and Williams live on in the memory of Cubs nation. Ryne Sandberg, Rick Sutcliffe, Mark Grace, Andre Dawson, Sammy Sosa, Mark Prior, and Lee Smith were all outstanding players who labored with terrific Cubs teams since that time, but they do not have the appeal of "Durocher's Cubs." David Claerbaut offers an explanation why. This is a very good book that would have been better with good editing and references.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
I Had Hoped For More, September 7, 2000
While this book does provide insight into the conflicts between the Cubs' players and Manager Leo Durocher, I thought the book contained too much statistical analysis and game by game detail. Leo, as manager of the Cubs, apparently wasn't the same manager who led those earlier Brooklyn Dodger and New York Giant teams of the late 40's and early to mid-50's. Perhaps one who loves statistics would be more interested in analyzing why the Cubs lost during Durocher's tenure. What it boils down to is that it was a combination of reasons such as Durocher not resting his regulars periodically in favor of bench players or failure to use relief pitchers other than Phil Regan, and players partying out on Rush Street at 3:00 a.m. rather than getting the necessary rest to play the game the following afternoon. The book was okay, but I guess I expected more.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Durocher's Cubs, September 7, 2001
Excellent, I enjoyed it every much. If you lived through Durocher's Cubs you'll love it. Brought back a lot of memories. It tells the complete story of the team, not just 69. It also contains the best analysis yet of why they didn't win a title and why we loved those players so much. The 67 run to first place, Adolpho Phillips, Willie Smith's home run, Holtzman's no hitter, Pepitone, Pappas, the clubhouse explosion, it's all here.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Not a Bad Read, January 1, 2001
This book is great if you are a fanatic for statistics that go above and beyond what you usually get...seasonal batting and pitching statistics. But, I do not go much past those statistics and the author uses them far more often than I as a reader wanted to see, mainly because it fragmented much of the narrative. The author does well in explaining their purpose, I just didn't care for them. Now, as far as baseball history goes, if you have read or know little about the Cubs seasons during the tenure of Leo Durocher, this book will be very insightful in many respects. Otherwise, it's just another baseball book with too many statistics added. I would have preferred something with interviews from more of the players that made up the Cubs teams as they recounted what happened that kept them from winning the division. The one thing the author really did a great job of pointing out was the ineffectiveness of Kessinger and Beckert at the top of the order. Although they were all-stars, they weren't the tablesetters that Williams, Santo, and Banks really needed in front of them. All in all, I did get enjoyment from this book, but I can't see myself reading it over again as I have with many others in my library.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
With all that MAGIC and PASSION, why didn't they win?, April 1, 2000
DUROCHER'S CUBS is dynamite! It captures and actually recreates all the excitement and passion of those magical years for baseball fans, and still provides fresh and solid answers as to why this great team of half a decade fell short. The insights into Leo's personality were amazing. Thank you David Claerbaut!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
0 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Durocher's Cubs makes its point OVER AND OVER AND OVER, April 27, 2001
Durocher's Cubs is a pretty good book analyzing the Cubs best years. However at times I felt like I was reading a media guide and not a book. He proves time and time again that Durocher was not the same manager as he was compared to his years in Brooklyn by giving us countless game situations. He goes into too much detail about Durocher's childhood and demons that he faced. All of us have our demons but the author treats these as the only reason the Cubs couldn't win. If I remember correctly, Durocher never threw a pitch, swung a bat, or threw a ball that year. For a better Cub history book, read The Chicago Cubs: The Million to One team.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
5 of 7 people found the following review helpful:
Worst Book I've Ever Read, January 20, 2003
I grew up as a Cub fan. I've changed loyalties since the late 70's, but the Cubs of Claerbaut are still my heroes. This book, however, is the WORST I've ever read on any topic. As a history teacher of 31 years I've read somewhere in the vicinity of 1,000 books. Never have I seen a tome that has had as many incorrect spellings, botched facts, inane analyses, and poor writing style. I now regret having had my wife lovingly dish out my hard-earned money for this literary trainwreck. She could have gotten me a highlight tape of the '69 Mets and it would not aggravate me as much.Here and now I'm warning any Bruin-backer (as Claerbaut would label him) to save his cash, keep an eye on ESPN CLassic, and have the patience to wait until Leo's era in Chicago is profiled.
After all, if a Cub fan has been waiting 57 years for another pennant, he can bide his time a little longer for a better book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Inside Stuff, July 10, 2000
There has been a geat deal written about Leo Durocher, but this book offers a tighter insight into who he really was than anything so far. It also gives the reader a flavor of the era, you can feel the energy and drum-beat of the 60s throughout. More than being a trip down baseball's memory lane, it provides solid answers and clear explanations as to why this very famous team performed (and didn't perform) the way it did. Well-researched and well-written, it provides insight from the inside.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Story So Good, It Would Survive Any Author, November 26, 2003
... I live in Southern California and I'm a life long Dodgers and Angels fan, but I remember "Durocher's Cubs" very well. In 1969, I wanted the Mets to win, but the following spring I read Leonard Koppett's "The New York Mets: The Whole Story" and got my first exposure to the arrog | |
