Chicago Cubs Lack of World Series and Curse Theory

Chicago Cubs

The history of athletics and sports has been dominated by superstition. Players have lucky socks which they refuse to change for a whole season. Until they won the World Series, Boston Red Socks fans were convinced that their favorite team had been cursed by a bad trade with the New York Yankees over Babe Ruth. This article concerns the fans of the Chicago Cubs who are equally certain that the only reason that their team has not won the World Series because of a similar supernatural phenomenon, specifically a cursed stadium seat.

Writer Matt Linder tells the story about a moment back in 2003 that changed the history of this franchise. Spectator Steve Bartman was sitting in the infamous seat: Seat 113 in Aisle 4, Row 8 at Wrigley Field when a foul ball came his way during the eight inning of the NLCS. Left fielder Moises Alou made a dive to catch the fly ball which would have made the batter out. Instead, Bartman reached over the rail and caught the ball. This was the closest that the Chicago White Sox had come to participating in the Series since 1945. To this day, Bartman's name is synonymous with villainy for Cubs fans and the seat has become a tourist destination, many baseball fans taking the time to photograph the otherwise inauspicious molded green plastic folding chair.

Now whereas the author of the article seems to take an impartial view of the situation, it is evident from the people he quoted that he sides with the fans against Bartman and his action. Among the testimonials that are used throughout the piece, none were in defense of this man. The only person listed who does not have negative emotions towards Steve Bartman is the man who went for the ball, Moises Alou. This is not presented as a direct quote, giving the inclusion of the sentence, "Alou admitted that he wouldn't have caught the foul pop that Bartman has been vilified for and that he's made peace with the incident" an off the hand quality which detracts from the reader believing the sentence. Especially when you compare that sentence with the one from earlier in the same article where Linder wrote, "In the eighth inning of the potential NLCS-clinching game against Florida, [Bartman] interfered with a pop foul seemingly destined to land in the glove of Cubs left fielder Moises Alou." This is only one specific example wherein the reader is subtly directed to agree with Cubs fans and feel anger towards Steve Bartman and his reaching hands.

The first image of the piece, showing Steve Bartman reaching beyond the wall to take the ball from above the head of Moises Alou would indicate a much less inflammatory version of events. The picture shows several fans, not just Bartman equally eager in their grasping for a souvenir from the NLCS game. The larger man to the right of Bartman also has his hands over the edge of the railing, which would mean that he could have been a source of interference as easily as Bartman, had the ball gone slightly to the right. The position of the ball and Bartman's arm show him clearly touching the glove of Alou. However, it also shows that Moises Alou's arm is fully extended and the trajectory of the ball would not have put it in the middle of his glove. In short, there was no way that Alou was going to catch that foul according to the captured moment on the film.

The other two pictures in the article deal with the haunted chair and the view of the field from that self-same green chair. When you look at Chair 113 it looks inauspicious. It is one of thousands and yet it is infamous. Of the chair itself, many die-hard Cubs fans refuse to sit in it. "I didn't want to sit in the exact same seat that he was in. I didn't want to jinx the Cubs." Even though the chair sits in the front row and is right along the field, allowing for a perfect and unobstructed view of the events on the ball field, no one who loves the Chicago Cubs will sit there. This information not only tells the story about how the people who believe in this alleged curse perceive an inanimate object with no real innate negative qualities, but also shows again the slant of the author. No one is quoted with a scientific response that would potentially negate the superstition. Indeed no other perspective aside from a belief in the curse is presented in the text.