Jump to content

Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:

Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:

Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays


Cubs Calendar - 6/3/2013 - Broglio

  • Please log in to reply
5 replies to this topic

#1 hansman1982


    King Regent of The Calendar Trivia Empire

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,939 posts
  • Twitter:JoeHansman
  • LocationDes Moines, IA

Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:47 AM

Thank you to everyone who filled in the past week, I am now back at my desk and ready to go... :(


How many games did Ernie Brolio win for the Cubs after the team traded Lou Brock for him in 1964?


Double bonus points if you can get how many seasons it took for him to hit this lofty number.




(Man, it was a challenge not typing Tony Campana in there instead of Brock)

#2 Stinky Pete

Stinky Pete

    The Woodward AND Bernstein of the Message Board

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 624 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 09:07 AM

I will start the bidding at....... 5 wins in three years.  Complete wild guess.

#3 Spriggs


    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,018 posts
  • LocationArizona

Posted 03 June 2013 - 09:31 AM

The trade was in 1964, so half that year.  He has a Cubs baseball card in 1965 and 1966.  So, I'd say Stinky is correct with 3 years.  He was just flat out god awful, so 5 wins sounds good to me, but I will up it to 6. 


I know he had a 1 - 6 record in 1965 and just absolutely f'ing blew to high heaven and could not even throw strikes.  He had to have been hurt. 

#4 hansman1982


    King Regent of The Calendar Trivia Empire

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,939 posts
  • Twitter:JoeHansman
  • LocationDes Moines, IA

Posted 03 June 2013 - 09:35 AM

Three years is correct, the wins are a touch too low.


I'll give it to Stinky - being off by 2 wins over 3 years isn't bad.


(That's 7 wins in 3 years for those of you keeping score)

#5 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,369 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 03 June 2013 - 09:41 AM

What about those of us not keeping score? Welcome back Joey. We did get to see what a non-calendar would look like though.

"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy


"Ow" - Dylan Bundy

#6 5412


    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 135 posts

Posted 03 June 2013 - 07:12 PM



The stats don't point out the tragedy in the Brock for Brogolio trade however.  I was 24 in 1964 and followed the team closely like many of you do today.


Check out the split stats for Lou Brock and they are telling.  The Cubs touted him as a budding superstar and he was a stumblebum while he played here.  He was worse than Corey Patterson ever was, stumbling around in the outfiled and looked like he never had a clue.


Then look at what happened in 1964 after the trade, he had his best year in the major leagues and led the Cardinals to the World Series.  To this day, I will argue that, with the information the Cubs had at the time and Brock's play on the field, it was a decent trade.


If you have ever coached, there are just some kids that flat don't listen.  It is like the old story about the mule and the 2x4 where you have to get their attention.  I think the fact he was traded woke him up because all the time he played in Chicago he flat dogged it in the outfiled and was terribly inconsistent.  His physical skills never changed, he didn't magically develop speed and a new swing the day he was traded.


Give the Cardinals credit for turning him around, but I believe the problem was his attitude.  I still feel he was doggin it in Chicago going through the motions.  His stats say he belongs in the HOF but he sure did not play that way in Chicago.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).