I’ve been lamenting for years that since the inception of interleague play, the Cubs or Sox’s season hinged on their first series. It had seemed to me that which ever team won the first series, started on a roll, while the other faltered to mediocrity. Perhaps my warped little mind had too much Old Style flowing when I came up with this theory.

As I listened to the series last week, I thought for sure this would be the turning point in the season. The Cubs took two of three, and were surely on their way now. As this past week progressed, I did a little research. What I found was that I need to stop coming up with theories.

Year Wins Losses vs. Sox W/L before series W/L after series
1997 68 94 1-2 27-40 40-51
1998* 90 73 3-0 34-24 53-49
1999 67 95 2-4 32-24 35-68
2000 65 97 3-3 25-35 38-60
2001 88 74 2-4 36-21 50-51
2002 67 95 3-3 26-38 38-56
2003* 88 74 2-4 39-32 47-40
2004 89 73 4-2 40-32 48-39
2005 79 83 3-3 18-20 59-61
2006 66 96 2-4 17-23 48-71

Basically, what I learned is that one series cannot determine the outcome of a season. We may think the Cubs/Sox series is a big deal, but it really doesn’t amount to a hill of beans. The Cubs have managed two series wins against the Southsiders. 2004, being the only season we expected a playoff, and possibly a World Series run, and we all remember how that turned out. The saving grace in 2003, was the Cubs impressive 19-9 record in the month of September. Otherwise, it was a .500 club, which certainly solidifies the theory of one or two good months can make a season. The rest of the year is .500.

In the meantime, I’m going back to creating some hair brained theories while under the influence. I wonder what creative genius Bud will make me…..

Like what you see here? Never miss new content. Follow Us:

Been blogging on VFTB since 2006. It's been a long silly run thus far. I still play baseball in the Chicago North Men's Senior Baseball League.