Lilly's reaction to the homer

[OleMissCub]

Is now the physical manifestation of our frustration:

 

Just finished making this:

 

http://www.gifninja.com/Workspace/88c20d7e-39a7-4c75-a07e-7f5beb88c4e1/output.gif

[anabiono]

was probably the coolest thing so far in this series

 

hopefully they can top themselves on saturday

 

 

go lilly!!!!!

[Roast]

Ok, so take that video. Put my face on it, and replace the glove with a plastic coffee mug.

 

That's what happened in my dorm tonight.

[TruffleShuffle]

awesome

[Yeti]

over throw...over react...

[rocket]

it would have been better if he threw it at the batter

[Lockes Eye Scar]

this will be of great use for many seasons to come

[OleMissCub]

this will be of great use for many seasons to come

 

Exactly why I made it.

 

I have a feeling it'll soon be an NSBBism on the scale of "Moran"

[TruffleShuffle]

this will be of great use for many seasons to come

 

Exactly why I made it.

 

I have a feeling it'll soon be an NSBBism on the scale of "Moran"

 

i was thinking that this will symbolize the failure of the 2007 cubs.

 

2003 symbol(s): Bartman, girl crying

2004 symbol(s): Latroy Hawkins

[OleMissCub]

I was just noticing that the camera work reminds me of:

 

http://www.gifninja.com/Workspace/61a99455-f95f-4c4e-a891-8769dec953d9/output.gif

[Roast]

I was just noticing that the camera work reminds me of:

 

http://www.gifninja.com/Workspace/61a99455-f95f-4c4e-a891-8769dec953d9/output.gif

hahahhaha, awesome.

 

Thanks, omc, I needed a laugh.

[SaorsaDaonnan]

was probably the coolest thing so far in this series

 

hopefully they can top themselves on saturday

 

 

go lilly!!!!!

 

 

 

cool? you call this kind of immature crap "cool?"

 

cool would have been focusing his anger on the next batter. cool would have been setting his self-pity aside and performing the job to the fullest extent of his ability. diverting his attention and wasting his energy on an event that could no longer be controlled is the antithesis of cool. throwing his glove on the ground signalled that, at least in the heat of that moment, Ted Lilly was more interested in quickly minimizing unpleasant feelings than in maximizing the Cubs' chances of winning. it shows that, in that instant, he cared more about momentary pain than about his teammates or about achievement or competition. when the team needed him, he was too busy crying.

 

what the hell is wrong with NSBB tonight? coming out in praise of Lilly's infantile tantrum is perfectly in step with the sentiments described by a majority of the posters during tonight's game thread, where several posters went so far as to say that they would prefer the Cubs to perform badly in the playoffs rather than well, provided that the Cubs aren't going to end up winning the world series. what kind of fan would rather his team do badly, just so he doesn't have to end up disappointed? what kind of fan would rather his team go three and out than lose a well-played game seven of the world series? what kind of fan would rather his team lose in an embarassing ****fest than lose a beautifully played game like the recent Padres-Rockies match? apparently, the type of fan who enjoyed Lilly's juvenile outburst.

 

we are not dead. we are not a good team, and we are only debatably as good as our opponents. so far we have [expletive] all over ourselves in some of the most frustrating ways possible. aside from Zambrano and Soto, Wood, and a handfull others, we have played horribly. poor defense has worsened unbelievably bad pitching from normally solid pitchers. aside from, inexplicably, Jacque Jones, even our normally more disciplined hitters have swung the bat like idiots. Soriano has been an embarassment. we are overwhelmingly likely to lose this series, and very probably we will have deserved it. but why go in for all this self-immolating emo crap about rolling over just to lessen the pain? why celebrate the fact that Lilly stopped competing after that pitch, or that so many so-called fans want the team to lay down and die? how could anyone want to be the kind of weak spirited quitter that doesn't even have the pride to die well? and what kind of fan of baseball would rather call off the games just to save himself a little distress? what kind of competitor would give up even the smallest chance of a shot at eternal glory just in order that his probable death might come about more comfortably? some of you will say that you have been hurt too much. I say that you have learned to fear the pain so much that you no longer really care.

 

 

edited for minor grammatical mistakes

[TruffleShuffle]

what the hell is wrong with NSBB tonight?

 

What the hell is wrong with you? He was angry at himself about throwing a meatball to the batter, and on the spur of the moment he slammed his glove to the ground. I'm pretty sure he didn't think about it beforehand and say "okay if I throw a bad pitch here then I'm gonna hurl this glove into the dirt." It just happened. You seem to be saying that he didn't really care that much about his teammates or competition, which makes zero sense given that he reacted so strongly to giving up the lead. His poor performance after the home run wasn't because he lost his cool; he was pitching like crap the whole way through. But yeah I guess you're probably right, Lilly just stopped trying after he gave up that home run.

[Brian]

honestly ( and this may very well be the beer talking) but that made me love Ted Lilly that much more with that glove to the ground he knew that he soap dropped up and that is all what we did in spirit. It was representation of the Cub experience.

 

Go Cubs.

 

Go Ted Lilly.

 

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20071005/capt.a6182582b128445fbf5516ce64fad6fb.cubs_diamondbacks_baseball_azrf107.jpg

[snoodmonger]

the problem was, he was never in control of his emotions. consequently, he was never able to perform adequately. that animated gif is a microcosm of that. In a year it might be humorous, but right now it makes me angry because it represents how overwhelmed emotionally Lilly was. (Although the hamster comparison was worth a laugh).

 

it sucks, because he's been really good for us all year. But he looked terrified all night, and I can only assume that affected his ability to play.

[TruffleShuffle]

the problem was, he was never in control of his emotions. consequently, he was never able to perform adequately. that animated gif is a microcosm of that. In a year it might be humorous, but right now it makes me angry because it represents how overwhelmed emotionally Lilly was. (Although the hamster comparison was worth a laugh).

 

it sucks, because he's been really good for us all year. But he looked terrified all night, and I can only assume that affected his ability to play.

 

he looked terrified? he didn't look like anything to me. he looked like he always does, like a serial killer with a chopped-up prostitute in his trunk.

[OleMissCub]

what the hell is wrong with NSBB tonight?

 

Play sports much in your lifetime?

 

sometimes Testosterone + Nerves + Embarrassment + Hugely important situation = violent outburst

[snoodmonger]

the problem was, he was never in control of his emotions. consequently, he was never able to perform adequately. that animated gif is a microcosm of that. In a year it might be humorous, but right now it makes me angry because it represents how overwhelmed emotionally Lilly was. (Although the hamster comparison was worth a laugh).

 

it sucks, because he's been really good for us all year. But he looked terrified all night, and I can only assume that affected his ability to play.

 

he looked terrified? he didn't look like anything to me. he looked like he always does, like a serial killer with a chopped-up prostitute in his trunk.

 

lol. i thought his bpdy language conveyed some serious nerves. maybe it was just me.

[OleMissCub]

diverting his attention and wasting his energy on an event that could no longer be controlled is the antithesis of cool. throwing his glove on the ground signalled that, at least in the heat of that moment, Ted Lilly was more interested in quickly minimizing unpleasant feelings than in maximizing the Cubs' chances of winning. it shows that, in that instant, he cared more about momentary pain than about his teammates or about achievement or competition. when the team needed him, he was too busy crying.

 

What the crap is this all about??

 

You are writing as if he had time to reflect upon what he was going to do. Do you see how fast he reacted, the ball hadn't even crossed the fence when his glove hit the ground.

 

All it "signals" to me is that a guy was pissed off that he just blew a MASSIVELY important game wide open.

[OleMissCub]

honestly ( and this may very well be the beer talking) but that made me love Ted Lilly that much more with that glove to the ground he knew that he soap dropped up and that is all what we did in spirit. It was representation of the Cub experience.

 

Go Cubs.

 

Go Ted Lilly.

 

+1

 

At the very least it showed he cared a great deal about what he was doing and understood the significance of what had just happened.

 

To many of these guys, baseball is just "what they do", it's their business. Lilly's reaction didn't seem at all like that.

[badnews]

I don't agree. Everybody loves it when a guy "shows fire" after screwing up but the fact is that little performance doesn't endear him to me after the way he crapped out. Winning is the only thing that matters. I wouldn't give a damn if he was a lifeless, unemotional robot if they won. Throwing a tantrum after you've gotten your ass handed to you because you decided to fall behind every hitter doesn't seem cool to me. When you win nothing is cool, nothing at all.

[ZiggyTaxi]

Play sports much in your lifetime?

 

Oh God, here we go...

[SaorsaDaonnan]

I guess you're probably right, Lilly just stopped trying after he gave up that home run.

 

 

That is not what I said, although I will certainly accept blame for stating my point badly and, as I'll explain in a minute, for adding a cheap shot.

 

S1) "throwing his glove on the ground signalled that, at least in the heat of that moment, Ted Lilly was more interested in quickly minimizing unpleasant feelings than in maximizing the Cubs' chances of winning."

 

S2) "it shows that, in that instant, he cared more about momentary pain than about his teammates or about achievement or competition. "

 

S3) "when the team needed him, he was too busy crying."

 

 

Let's talk about S3 first. After rereading my post, I can see that it was a mistake on my part to say that. First, it was an insulting comment that played no actual role in my argument. Since I'd already made my substantive claims in S1 and S2, my decision to include S3 was gratuitous. Second, as your post shows, including S3 exaggerated the liklihood that my actual position would be misunderstood. As I'll explain in just a second, I asserted only that Lilly quit on the team after the HR, not that he never recovered or that he never restablished what I'm sure are his real priorities. But before we move on to that, I should say something about more about a third reason why S3 might have been unfair.

 

When making an accusation, or defending against one, it is often helpful to keep in mind the distinction between justifications and excuses. Suppose that I make an accusation against someone else, saying that an action they performed was inappropriate or wrong. That person then has two options to defend himself. One option is to claim that what he did was the actually the correct thing to do. The other is to admit that he shouldn't have done whatever it was, but that for some reason he should be let off the hook. The latter option -the excuse- is a claim to the effect that, under the circumstances, it was understandable, though not justifiable, that the person did what he did, for instance because some things are just too much to ask of someone.

 

When I claimed that Lilly's priorities went awry, I only offered an argument for why his behavior was unjustified. I never said anything about the possibility of excuses. I admit that this omission was a mistake. I made it only because I wasn't thinking as carefully as I should have been. So, if anyone wants to argue that I'm unfairly blaming Lilly for the type of emotional outburst no one should be expected to control, they would be perfectly right to criticize my earlier post for unfairly neglecting their position.

 

But the argument that Lilly should be excused from responsibility assumes that his behavior was unjustified. It's not clear to me whether you or others here accept that. For instance, the post immediately after yours, Brian's, seems not to. The first posts in this topic also seem to assert that Lilly's behavior was justified. Since, arguably, there's no point in arguing about excuses if there's no agreement about the possibility of justification, we should talk about justification first.

 

I assume that almost everyone here agrees that if Lilly quit on the team, then his behavior was unjustified. That amounts to saying that each player has a responsibility to the team to focus on the play at hand, and to make every effort to shove aside self-recriminating thoughts for the duration of their time on field. It seems plain to me that Lilly did not do this, and thus was in violation of his responsibility to focus on getting each batter out. One argument open to you is that some players have much stronger emotions than others, and that in some cases emotions get so strong that a player is unable to control them. Perhaps Lilly tried his best to contain his anger, but failed. If so, Lilly has an excuse. But it seems to me that you are saying something different. It seems to me that you're claiming, contra me, that Lilly didn't quit on the team. I'll quote a couple lines of your post to show why I think this.

 

S4)

His poor performance after the home run wasn't because he lost his cool; he was pitching like crap the whole way through.

 

S5)

But yeah I guess you're probably right, Lilly just stopped trying after he gave up that home run.[/quote}

 

S4 is the key sentence. In it you argue that the runs he gave up after the home run had nothing to do, or very little, to do with losing his control. As I'll explain in a minute, I partially argee with that statement. But as I will also explain, I do believe that Lilly quit. Before we go further, let's note that S5, your concluding sentence, points to a confusing argument.

 

It sounds to me as though you're saying that since Lilly's reaction to the home run didn't cause him to give up runs (S4), he didn't quit. If that's really the argument, then I confess that I don't understand. Those two things, whether or not he quit and whether or not the runs he gave up were the product of his alleged quitting, seem to me to be at least partially independent. As a counterexample, I offer this:

 

S6)yeah, Tavarez walked another three batters, but he since he got out of the jam, it wasn't bad that he walked them.

 

the above statement seems to me to be patently wrong. please say so if we disagree about that, but I'll assume that you don't. It seems to me that this counterexample shows something important. Lilly's quitting, if he did quit, was bad whether or not it led to bad results. And if it was bad, I assume that it's legitimate to criticize...unless someone can come forward with a good excuse. However, it might be argued that since nothing bad actually resulted from it, it's pointless to criticize him for it. This amounts to saying that although Lilly's behavior can be neither justified nor excused, it's a waste of time to talk about it. But that position, I think, can be easily refuted by the following example:

 

S7) Sure, Tavarez gave up nine runs in the first and seventeen in the second, but since our offense scored thirty seven runs in the eighth, who cares?

 

Would anybody actually defend the position that criticising Tavarez's (hypothetical) S7 performance is nothing but nitpicking? Surely not. An important variation on that argument, though, is possible: perhaps a case like S7 shows that it's wrong to assume that inconsequential mistakes should never be criticized. But, mightn't it still be possible that one could offer too much criticism? Isn't it possible that someone might have done something wrong, and have no excuse, but nevertheless be blamed beyond all proportionality?

 

Yes. That is obviously possible, and maybe some of you will want to argue that I did precisely that. Noting that the propotionality argument admits that some degree of blame is appropriate, some of you might argue that I have been too severe in criticizing Lilly, despite the fact that he deserved at least some blame for the incident. In one way, I agree with this criticism of me: as I said above, my decision to include S3 was gratitous. In the sense that I repeated a negative accustation for purely rhetorical purposes, I think it's true that I was unfair. But in another sense, the sense that relates to my basic argument rather than my (lack of) style, I don't think I was being unfair at all. Before defending the judgment I made in the previous post, let me turn briefly to the clarification I mentioned all the way back at the beginning of this post.

 

Truffle, the position you attribute to me in your post is not actually my position. By all apperances you interpreted me to have claimed that Lilly quit after the HR and never again gave the kind of full, focused effort that he owed the team. I'm not sure that that's my actual position, and it definitely is NOT the position I was trying to assert in my post. I stress, though, that it's mostly my fault that you thought it was. I should have been much clearer.

 

The position I took in the above post was only that Lilly quit on the team after the HR, not that he never again gave his full effort. As evidence I offer the bolded parts of S1 and S2. At the time I wrote the post, I thought that those qualifying phrases were enough to make it clear that I was saying the he quit on the team for a period of time, but without specifying how long that period was. The position I wrote down above would be compatible with saying that Lilly had quit on the team when he was pitching to the first batter after the HR, but had recovered by the time he was facing the batter after that. Or that was still sulking when he faced the next two batters, but not by the time he faced the third. Or that he sulked for the rest of that inning but had regained perspective by the time he went out for the fourth.

 

To be honest, I'm unsure of how long he was "mentally checked out." While I am absolutely convinced that he was not focused on the first batter after the home run, I'm not completely sure how long it took him to restore focus, or even whether he restored focus at all. I simply couldn't tell for sure. If I had to guess, it was sometime during the third AB after the HR, but I was unsure at the time and haven't seen many replays. It did look to me like he got distracted again in the fourth (again, that is, if he had recovered latter in the third), but I'm not positive of that, either. And, while it's largely inconsequential to the disagreement we're having, for what it's worth I agree that Lilly would have given up more runs even had he been in his pre-HR mindset. I don't know that it would have been the same amount, but I'd be willing to agree that it probably would have been enough to doom us anyway.

 

 

Given my belief that Lilly quit or mentally deserted us for at least a few batters after the HR, I am prepared to defend my criticism of him against anybody who might be interested in arguing. It seems to me to go without saying that a pitcher whose focus shifts away from the batter he is facing deserves severe criticism, particularly in a crucial game in the playoffs. As I mentioned a few paragraphs back, it might still be possible to blame me for going to far in my criticism. Perhaps that's true. It's certainly unclear why I had to talk about both Lilly and the ready-to-quit Cubs fans in the same post. Perhaps some of my ire towards them filtered into my discussion of Lilly. But that would be a much humbler criticism of my position than anyone has so far offered.

 

 

Given my belief that Lilly quit or mentally deserted us for at least a few batters after the HR, I am prepared to defend my criticism of him against anybody who might be interested in arguing. It seems to me to go without saying that a pitcher whose focus shifts away from the batter he is facing deserves severe criticism, particularly in a crucial game in the playoffs. As I mentioned a few paragraphs back, it might still be possible to blame me for going to far in my criticism. Perhaps that's true. It's certainly unclear why I had to talk about both Lilly and the ready-to-quit Cubs fans in the same post. Perhaps some of my ire towards them filtered into my discussion of Lilly. But that is not say the basic point was flawed. For the reasons I've just typed out, I don't think that it was.

 

I would like to end by responding to one final criticism that you make of me, namely that I accused Lilly of not caring about the team. That is not my position, nor is it what I said in my post. In S1 and S2 I said that Lilly cared more about minimizing unpleasant feelings, and cared more about the pain than about the team. That is very different from saying that he did not care at all. That one thing is a priority over another does not demonstrate that the lower priority is unimportant. A nurse, for instance, might care very much about her health, but still care for a sick and very contagious person. That the nurse risks her health to care for the sick patient hardly shows that she does not care about her health. That Lilly cared, according to me, more about those other things than about his duty to his team, for whatever period of time he allowed himself to sulk, doesn't imply that he didn't care about the team. Also, I'm not saying that Lilly's "real" priority isn't the team. In fact, I think that Lilly "really" cares more about the team than about those other things, but that he lost sight of that tonight, for two batters or for six or nine, or however temporarily it was. I believe that he could have done better.

 

(casually) edited for grammar and spacing

Edited October 5, 2007 by SaorsaDaonnan

[SaorsaDaonnan]

You are writing as if he had time to reflect upon what he was going to do. Do you see how fast he reacted, the ball hadn't even crossed the fence when his glove hit the ground.

 

 

Bullpucky.

 

My argument does not require that Lilly had time to reflect. It requires only that Lilly have spent time training himself to control his reactions.

 

Testosterone + Nerves + Embarrassment + Hugely important situation = violent outburst

 

 

actually, no.

 

Testosterone + Nerves + Embarrassment + Hugely important situation + no self control = violent outburst

[XZero771679666304]

You are writing as if he had time to reflect upon what he was going to do. Do you see how fast he reacted, the ball hadn't even crossed the fence when his glove hit the ground.

 

 

Bullpucky.

 

My argument does not require that Lilly had time to reflect. It requires only that Lilly have spent time training himself to control his reactions.

 

Testosterone + Nerves + Embarrassment + Hugely important situation = violent outburst

 

 

actually, no.

 

Testosterone + Nerves + Embarrassment + Hugely important situation + no self control = violent outburst

 

What he did was no worse then someone breaking a bat over their knee or chucking their helmet in disgust after a strikeout.

 

Ted was overhyped, and overthrew. I think he was acutely aware of what was at stake, and that there is no one on the team that cares more than he does.

 

Without his ability to focus and bear down when the team needs him most, the Cubs are not even in the playoffs. I find the idea that he took some sort of mental vacation because he couldn't cope with the pressure to be patently ludicrous.

 

The only thing Ted may be guilty of is caring too much. The guy just didn't have his control tonight.