This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
It appears that www.all-baseball.com has gone offline-- as of this posting, there's complete packet loss on attempts to ping them. Do we have alternate sources for the explanatory links? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The42ndGuy ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
Some IP went nuts with fact tags on May 1. Most of them are frivolous. We don't need fact tags as to who won which games of a given World Series, for example. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Why does this need a fact tag? The Curse of the Bambino ended when the Red Sox won the 2004 World Series. Obviously, they had to have won the 2004 ALCS to get there. I don't understand why that requires a fact tag. 161.185.151.150 ( talk) 20:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This artlicle does not flow, does not tell me much about the Ex Cub Factor, and then spends a paragraph telling me something useless about how the Sox beat Mariano Rivera in 2004. If the article is going to spend as little as a paragraph on one play in the 2004 ALCS it should not even be written. Plus, there is no mention of the one play that led to the comeback, only the outdated term of "inside baseball" which refers to the SB by Dave Roberts, but even the term of inside baseball is incorrect. There is no use for this article as it is written now. Dkpiatt\ Whisper sweet nothings 04:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"Since 1946 [and through 2000], the theory had remained intact. Its only exception had been the 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates, who had defeated the New York Yankees in a sudden-victory finish in Game 7. At that time, the Ex-Cubs Factor theory was unknown."
It might be worth mentioning that 1960 is "the exception that proves the rule." That series was the one in which the Yankees outscored the Pirates by better than 2:1 yet still managed to lose four games by close scores. "The Factor" was only overcome by relentless determination and good luck, and then just barely!
WHPratt (
talk) 13:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I could have suggested that there was a corollary to the theorem: that it doesn't apply when the better team loses, but I feared the scorn of old-line Pirates fans!
WHPratt (
talk) 17:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So I undertook a major rewrite on the page. 3/4ths of content was retained, although it was possibly lengthened or reworded. It did seem that a lot of it was 'original research' as broadly defined, which made retention of some content very difficult. I wanted to post here to explain some editing decisions and if anyone thinks any content was unfairly cut or skewed, just let me know what it is, and I'll do the editing to put it back in. But now for some explanations:
Most other content was retained, although in a modified form. If anyone has problems with the rewrite, let me know and I'll be more than willing to help get the page right. Thank you. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 22:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ex-Cubs Factor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has been
mentioned by a media organization:
|
It appears that www.all-baseball.com has gone offline-- as of this posting, there's complete packet loss on attempts to ping them. Do we have alternate sources for the explanatory links? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The42ndGuy ( talk • contribs) 23:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC).
Some IP went nuts with fact tags on May 1. Most of them are frivolous. We don't need fact tags as to who won which games of a given World Series, for example. ← Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:29, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Why does this need a fact tag? The Curse of the Bambino ended when the Red Sox won the 2004 World Series. Obviously, they had to have won the 2004 ALCS to get there. I don't understand why that requires a fact tag. 161.185.151.150 ( talk) 20:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
This artlicle does not flow, does not tell me much about the Ex Cub Factor, and then spends a paragraph telling me something useless about how the Sox beat Mariano Rivera in 2004. If the article is going to spend as little as a paragraph on one play in the 2004 ALCS it should not even be written. Plus, there is no mention of the one play that led to the comeback, only the outdated term of "inside baseball" which refers to the SB by Dave Roberts, but even the term of inside baseball is incorrect. There is no use for this article as it is written now. Dkpiatt\ Whisper sweet nothings 04:43, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
"Since 1946 [and through 2000], the theory had remained intact. Its only exception had been the 1960 Pittsburgh Pirates, who had defeated the New York Yankees in a sudden-victory finish in Game 7. At that time, the Ex-Cubs Factor theory was unknown."
It might be worth mentioning that 1960 is "the exception that proves the rule." That series was the one in which the Yankees outscored the Pirates by better than 2:1 yet still managed to lose four games by close scores. "The Factor" was only overcome by relentless determination and good luck, and then just barely!
WHPratt (
talk) 13:40, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I could have suggested that there was a corollary to the theorem: that it doesn't apply when the better team loses, but I feared the scorn of old-line Pirates fans!
WHPratt (
talk) 17:01, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
So I undertook a major rewrite on the page. 3/4ths of content was retained, although it was possibly lengthened or reworded. It did seem that a lot of it was 'original research' as broadly defined, which made retention of some content very difficult. I wanted to post here to explain some editing decisions and if anyone thinks any content was unfairly cut or skewed, just let me know what it is, and I'll do the editing to put it back in. But now for some explanations:
Most other content was retained, although in a modified form. If anyone has problems with the rewrite, let me know and I'll be more than willing to help get the page right. Thank you. AbstractIllusions ( talk) 22:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Ex-Cubs Factor. Please take a moment to review
my edit. You may add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)