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.