|
|
|
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
|
|
|
› See most helpful viewpoints
|
|
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful:
With all that MAGIC and PASSION, why didn't they win?, April 1, 2000
DUROCHER'S CUBS is dynamite! It captures and actually recreates all the excitement and passion of those magical years for baseball fans, and still provides fresh and solid answers as to why this great team of half a decade fell short. The insights into Leo's personality were amazing. Thank you David Claerbaut!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
Why is this Collection of Cubs So Well Remembered?, May 30, 2006
Between 1967 and 1972 one of the best teams ever assembled played in the friendly confines of Wrigley Field in Chicago. The Cubs during those years were perennial favorites to win at least the National League championship. Anchored by three Hall of Fame players--Ernie Banks, Billy Williams, and Ferguson Jenkins--and a Hall of Fame manager, Leo Durocher, they should have dominated the league. They didn't. During that stretch, as the author of this interesting book notes, "The Cubs turned in 515 victories, finished second three times, never lower than third, but won not a single flag of any kind--not a World Series, not a pennant, not even a divisional championship" (p. 2).
David Claerbaut, a stathead and diehard Cubs fan, unravels why the Cubs failed during that six year period when it looked like everything was in the team's favor. No question, they had the best starting lineup in the National League. Ernie Banks at first, Glenn Beckert at second, Don Kessinger at shortstop, Ron Santo at third base, and Randy Hundley at catcher filled out the infield. Billy Williams and others secured the outfield, and a stellar pitching staff with three superb starters in Ferguson Jenkins, Bill Hands, and Ken Holtzman ensured the opposition did not score many runs. Regardless, they did not win.
Then there was 1969. The St. Louis Cardinals had cruised to the National League championship in both 1967 and 1968, but in 1969 the Cubs burst out of the gate and no one believed they could be caught. On September 3 the Cubs led the second place New York Mets by five games, with 26 left to play and more than half of them at Wrigley Field. The Mets caught them, taking 23 of their last 30 games, and won the National League East by eight games. Meantime, the Cubs went 8 and 18. It was a stupendous collapse, one worthy of memorialization in song and story.
Claerbaut offers a useful inquiry into why the Cubs collapsed in 1969. He finds that their offense failed, their defense failed, and most importantly their will power failed. Durocher deserves major credit for the debacle. He refused to rest his stars and pushed them to their limits. Most important, he rode his veterans until they were ready to drop. He feuded with everyone--many of the players, virtually all of the sportswriters, and even the fans. His antics created tension everywhere. As Claerbaut concludes: "When people perform in a tense atmosphere, are tired, are led ineffectively, and are then unprepared emotionally for a major challenge, they are likely to collapse. They are likely to choke" (p. 129). The Cubs proved that truth in 1969.
The Cubs remained a superb team for several years after the 1969 season but never challenged for the National League East in the same way again. The Cincinnati Reds and the Pittsburgh Pirates emerged as the class of the league and dominated the early years of the 1970s. The team dispersed many of its players to other teams and in 1972 Durocher was finally fired as manager. Seemingly, Durocher's departure raised the Cubs of this era to an immortal status. Claerbaut notes that while there have been very good Cubs teams since 1972, some with Hall of Fame ballplayers and with division titles in 1984, 1989, and 2003, none have captured the imagination of fans more effectively than this collection of players that never reached the playoffs. Banks, Beckert, Callison, Hands, Hickman, Holtzman, Hundley, Jenkins, Kessinger, Regan, Santo, and Williams live on in the memory of Cubs nation. Ryne Sandberg, Rick Sutcliffe, Mark Grace, Andre Dawson, Sammy Sosa, Mark Prior, and Lee Smith were all outstanding players who labored with terrific Cubs teams since that time, but they do not have the appeal of "Durocher's Cubs." David Claerbaut offers an explanation why. This is a very good book that would have been better with good editing and references.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:
Not a Bad Read, January 1, 2001
This book is great if you are a fanatic for statistics that go above and beyond what you usually get...seasonal batting and pitching statistics. But, I do not go much past those statistics and the author uses them far more often than I as a reader wanted to see, mainly because it fragmented much of the narrative. The author does well in explaining their purpose, I just didn't care for them. Now, as far as baseball history goes, if you have read or know little about the Cubs seasons during the tenure of Leo Durocher, this book will be very insightful in many respects. Otherwise, it's just another baseball book with too many statistics added. I would have preferred something with interviews from more of the players that made up the Cubs teams as they recounted what happened that kept them from winning the division. The one thing the author really did a great job of pointing out was the ineffectiveness of Kessinger and Beckert at the top of the order. Although they were all-stars, they weren't the tablesetters that Williams, Santo, and Banks really needed in front of them. All in all, I did get enjoyment from this book, but I can't see myself reading it over again as I have with many others in my library.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
4 of 5 people found the following review helpful:
He swings, he whiffs..., May 14, 2000
By A Customer
While the topic of Durocher's Cubs is certainly a fascinating one, David Claerbaut totally dropped the ball. The writing is dull, the insights are not particularly insightful, and he constantly breaks the flow of the narrative with statistical analysis that borders on overkill. This is the first baseball book in ages that I haven't felt compelled to finish -- and I'm a Cubs fan!
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
6 of 8 people found the following review helpful:
Worst Book I've Ever Read, January 19, 2003
I grew up as a Cub fan. I've changed loyalties since the late 70's, but the Cubs of Claerbaut are still my heroes. This book, however, is the WORST I've ever read on any topic. As a history teacher of 31 years I've read somewhere in the vicinity of 1,000 books. Never have I seen a tome that has had as many incorrect spellings, botched facts, inane analyses, and poor writing style. I now regret having had my wife lovingly dish out my hard-earned money for this literary trainwreck. She could have gotten me a highlight tape of the '69 Mets and it would not aggravate me as much.Here and now I'm warning any Bruin-backer (as Claerbaut would label him) to save his cash, keep an eye on ESPN CLassic, and have the patience to wait until Leo's era in Chicago is profiled.
After all, if a Cub fan has been waiting 57 years for another pennant, he can bide his time a little longer for a better book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Durocher's Cubs, September 6, 2001
Excellent, I enjoyed it every much. If you lived through Durocher's Cubs you'll love it. Brought back a lot of memories. It tells the complete story of the team, not just 69. It also contains the best analysis yet of why they didn't win a title and why we loved those players so much. The 67 run to first place, Adolpho Phillips, Willie Smith's home run, Holtzman's no hitter, Pepitone, Pappas, the clubhouse explosion, it's all here.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 of 1 people found the following review helpful:
Inside Stuff, July 10, 2000
There has been a geat deal written about Leo Durocher, but this book offers a tighter insight into who he really was than anything so far. It also gives the reader a flavor of the era, you can feel the energy and drum-beat of the 60s throughout. More than being a trip down baseball's memory lane, it provides solid answers and clear explanations as to why this very famous team performed (and didn't perform) the way it did. Well-researched and well-written, it provides insight from the inside.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
3 of 4 people found the following review helpful:
Lovable Losers, May 15, 2001
Part of the mystic of the Chicago Cubs is that they have not been to a World Series since 1945 and haven't won one since the beginning of the 20th century. Most of those years, they haven't even been competitive, but the fans still fill up Wrigley Field game after game. They know the Cubbies aren't going to win, in fact they expect to lose. David Claerbaut's book focuses on the years of 1967-1972 when the Cubs put together the most impressive team in baseball, yet never won a division, much less a World Series. Mr. Claerbaut, using statistics, all star appearances, future hall of famers on the roster and other items to show that those Cubs in fact are the greatest team to never win a championship. Mr. Claerbaut is from Milwaukee and was originally a Braves fan, but converted to the Cubs after the Braves won the 1957 series. He writes the book as a fan and it is clear he loves the legendary Leo "The Lip" Durocher. But once you get past the fanatic aspect, the book offers some great information on team that due to never making the playoffs, had never gotten the attention they deserved. If your a Cubs fan, then this book will definitely interest you. If you are a student of the game, you will enjoy it as well. It is a good, but not great read.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 of 3 people found the following review helpful:
I Had Hoped For More, September 7, 2000
While this book does provide insight into the conflicts between the Cubs' players and Manager Leo Durocher, I thought the book contained too much statistical analysis and game by game detail. Leo, as manager of the Cubs, apparently wasn't the same manager who led those earlier Brooklyn Dodger and New York Giant teams of the late 40's and early to mid-50's. Perhaps one who loves statistics would be more interested in analyzing why the Cubs lost during Durocher's tenure. What it boils down to is that it was a combination of reasons such as Durocher not resting his regulars periodically in favor of bench players or failure to use relief pitchers other than Phil Regan, and players partying out on Rush Street at 3:00 a.m. rather than getting the necessary rest to play the game the following afternoon. The book was okay, but I guess I expected more.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Story So Good, It Would Survive Any Author, November 26, 2003
... I live in Southern California and I'm a life long Dodgers and Angels fan, but I remember "Durocher's Cubs" very well. In 1969, I wanted the Mets to win, but the following spring I read Leonard Koppett's "The New York Mets: The Whole Story" and got my first exposure to the arrogance of New York fans and media. "So, you don't think God is a Mets fan, eh?" Koppett kept saying. Yeech! I realized then I had been rooting for the wrong team. "Durocher's Cubs" are indeed one of the most fascinating baseball teams since World War II, and Claerbaut deserves credit for the brilliant idea of writing a book about them. It is such a good story, I'd recommend it (barely) even though there are many problems with Claerbaut's writing. First of all, throughout the book he employs archaic baseball terminology (a "base" is a "sack" and homerun is a "circuit shot", etc.) It's as if he were filing a newspaper story from the 1908 World Series. It gets pretty annoying after a while. Second, the 50 or so pages covering the 1966-1968 seasons are dry as dust. I wasn't sure I was going to be able to finish the book during that stretch. The tedium is primarily a function of his piling on of statistics while virtually ignoring the color and dash of the team's wonderful personalities. Third, yes, there are a number of typos, but not as many as some other reviewers might lead you to think. I'm afraid poor proof reading is fairly common in publishing these days. Fourth, I don't know why some reviewers are waxing eloquent about Claerbaut's coverage of the turbulent world outside the ballpark from 1966-1972. All he does is just open each chapter with a two-or-three-sentence paragraph that sets the world scene. His description is no deeper than my navel. And what he does say is rather laughable. To open the chapter on the 1971 season, he accuses Nixon of running a dictatorship: "The Nixon administration tightened its grip on America," he says, rather like Hitler in Germany following Hindenburg's death I guess. On the plus side, Claerbaut finally gets to the heartbreaking 1969 season. Then the heartbreaking 1970 season. Then the bitter, bitter souring of relations between Durocher and his players in 1971 and 1972. What a story! These chapters make the book. Claerbaut lays costly negligence at Durocher's feet for not addressing problems at the top of the batting order and in the bullpen, and he further indicts Durocher for not developing young talent, not using his bench players enough and generally operating in a mode of continual crisis. His chapter on Durocher himself is also very interesting. Claerbaut's critique of Durocher is such that he very importantly fails to ask the question his analysis would lead one to ask: could the Cubs of Jenkins, Banks, Santo, Williams and others have done better without him? I would have been very interested to read his opinion. Claerbaut is also negligent himself for repeating a rumor that Durocher may have bet against the Cubs in a crucial September 1969 game against the Mets. He seems to doubt that this is true, but if he was going to raise such a serious charge at all, he should have dealt with it in greater detail. A final criticism: Where is Ernie Banks in all this? Claerbaut quotes Jenkins, Santo and Williams throughout the book, but Banks has nothing to say. The reason seems to be that Claerbaut relies entirely on second hand sources for the observations of the ballplayers. Judging from Claerbaut's book, Ernie Banks evidently never wrote an autobiography. Today, the Cubs of Dusty Baker appear to be ready to have a string of contending years. Durocher's Cubs, then, sit almost in the middle of the long World Series drought from 1945 to...hopefully not too much longer. That fact alone makes this book about the six consecutive winning years of baseball's "loveable losers" a flawed but worthwhile one for fans of the Cubs and baseball in general.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews
Was this review helpful to you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
