Talk:Ex-Cubs Factor

message: 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)
thread_title:  www.all-baseball.com 

message: 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)
replies: text: Sorry Bugs, didn't look close enough when I reverted. I thought a bunch of the citations needed tags I'd added in the fall(which are still there I now see) were being removed, I must've missed when the IP added spurious tags back at the first. Mea culpa. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:52, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fact tags 

message: 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)
replies: text: Because we dont write the TRUTH, we use reliably sourced information and cite it to said sources. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ending Curse of Bambino Citation 

message: 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  Plus, there is no mention of the one play that led to the comeback, only the outdated term of "inside baseball" which refers to the SB by Dave Roberts, but even the term of inside baseball is incorrect.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)
replies: text: Feel free to propose or enter improvements. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:36, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not know of any.  As it reads in this article, it seems as nothing more than frivolous trivia. The fact that this is true should be in other Cub articles, but this uninteresting fact is undeserved of its own page. The reason there is so much irrelavant filler in this article is because there is nothing to write about.  No WS winner from [1946] to [2000] had more than 3 Ex-Cubs on the roster, 1960 exception.  That's pretty much everything, I think that whoever started the page did a fine job, with little to work with. I didn't mean to insult.  Dkpiatt\Whisper sweet nothings 03:35, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In a way, Mike Royko started the page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad Article 

message: "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)
thread_title:  Some Exception!

message: 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:
# Cut "Cure".  For a couple of reasons: First, the explanation is about curing the Red Sox curse, not about this one.  Second, the parallel between 1960/2001 and 2004 ALCS is not clear at all.  Unless it is simply a walk-off victory that is the parallel.  Third, because Berler is so funny, he has said there is no cure. 
# Cut "excuses" (that isn't the right word), but it looks like original research when the contrary cases are explained away (and I couldn't find reputable source to support most of them).  So, the "Ex-Cubs Factor theory was unknown" and "serious slumps in the years following their victories" and the explanation for the Phillies/Rays example also was cut.  If someone finds reputable source explaining the intricacies of the 40-man roster, and how coaches play in this, cool.  But I couldn't and they weren't sourced, so cut.  
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)
thread_title:  Rewrite to Remove Original Research Tag 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Ex-Cubs Factor. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for //www.all-baseball.com/ref/berler.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified