Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site bmcg.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!amd!decwrl!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!bmcg!marc From: marc@bmcg.UUCP Newsgroups: net.sport.baseball Subject: Famous Fade??? Message-ID: <1156@bmcg.UUCP> Date: Wed, 1-Aug-84 13:44:22 EDT Article-I.D.: bmcg.1156 Posted: Wed Aug 1 13:44:22 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 4-Aug-84 01:28:44 EDT Organization: Burroughs Corporation, San Diego Lines: 15 Why do people in the news media and our own net keep referring to the Cubs' "famous fade"? Although it was, admittedly, spectacular, it only happened ONCE. The only thing this year's team has in common with that one is the trainer; even the owner is different. Someone's going to say that there's one more thing in common -- all day games -- but I find it hard to believe that several hours in the sun, 4-5 times a week is going to make a trained athlete "fade" in September. Maybe instead it was a combination of the '69 Mets' young pitching staff jelling as the season went on, and the Cubs not being as good as everyone thought. (Sure they had the entire NL starting infield in the All-Star game, but Hundley was a lousy hitter, Beckert had limited range, Kessinger had a 2nd baseman's arm, and Santo couldn't hit in close games.) Marc Lee Burroughs Corp.