Re: 5/25 Cubs (Lilly) @ Pirates (Maholm) 12:35 PM WGN

[17 Seconds]

So by Jon's logic, if a player goes 0-4 and makes the routine defensive plays, that was an okay day.

[17 Seconds]

Saying it's okay that Soriano dropped the ball because he hit the HR doesn't make sense. He's supposed to get hits and drive runners in. You can't say that because he did his job at the plate, it offsets his play in the 9th.

 

If Soriano catches the ball the Cubs win. He didn't, and they didn't. This loss is entirely on him.

If Marmol had struck him out, the Cubs would have won. Is the loss also entirely on him? Does nothing before that play matter? If not, how could the Cubs have the lead? A full game consists on more than 1 play.

 

Again, I'm not saying they offset. I'm saying Soriano still came out ahead.

What's your point then, that Soriano shouldn't be blamed for the loss? I see your logic, I just don't think it makes any sense. To me it's very simple... if he catches a routine fly ball, the game is over. It's his fault that the Cubs didn't win.

 

No, it's not his fault the Cubs didn't win. There was more of the game to be played after the dropped popout. He made a play that greatly decreased the Cubs chances of winning.

 

lololol. If he catches the all, the game is over. Period. Instead, we lost. It's clearly his fault since that play ultimately and completely decided the game.

[Mizzou]

Saying it's okay that Soriano dropped the ball because he hit the HR doesn't make sense. He's supposed to get hits and drive runners in. You can't say that because he did his job at the plate, it offsets his play in the 9th.

 

If Soriano catches the ball the Cubs win. He didn't, and they didn't. This loss is entirely on him.

If Marmol had struck him out, the Cubs would have won. Is the loss also entirely on him? Does nothing before that play matter? If not, how could the Cubs have the lead? A full game consists on more than 1 play.

 

Again, I'm not saying they offset. I'm saying Soriano still came out ahead.

What's your point then, that Soriano shouldn't be blamed for the loss? I see your logic, I just don't think it makes any sense. To me it's very simple... if he catches a routine fly ball, the game is over. It's his fault that the Cubs didn't win.

 

No, it's not his fault the Cubs didn't win. There was more of the game to be played after the dropped popout. He made a play that greatly decreased the Cubs chances of winning.

If he catches the ball, the Cubs win. So yes, he is directly responsible for them not winning.

[Jon]

I must say that this is one of the most ridiculous debates I've participated in. If you don't want Soriano because he dropped a ball in the 9th, then you'd have to take out his 2-run HR. And guess what, the Cubs still lose.

 

I've heard of pivotal plays in a game, but to reduce a 5-4 game down to a game-tying run is a bit puzzling.

[Jon]

If he catches the ball, the Cubs win. So yes, he is directly responsible for them not winning.

Even so, you'd surely have to admit that he's not responsible for the Cubs losing, right? Only not winning in the 9th.

[Mizzou]

If he catches the ball, the Cubs win. So yes, he is directly responsible for them not winning.

Even so, you'd surely have to admit that he's not responsible for the Cubs losing, right? Only not winning in the 9th.

If that play would have resulted in the winning run scoring, then I'd say he's responsible for them losing. But that didn't happen so I don't entirely blame him for the loss. I do entirely blame him for not winning though. If that makes any sense.

[17 Seconds]

I must say that this is one of the most ridiculous debates I've participated in. If you don't want Soriano because he dropped a ball in the 9th, then you'd have to take out his 2-run HR. And guess what, the Cubs still lose.

 

I've heard of pivotal plays in a game, but to reduce a 5-4 game down to a game-tying run is a bit puzzling.

 

Why are you assuming that the replacement player wouldn't have done anything offensively?

[17 Seconds]

If he catches the ball, the Cubs win. So yes, he is directly responsible for them not winning.

Even so, you'd surely have to admit that he's not responsible for the Cubs losing, right? Only not winning in the 9th.

 

Answer these 2 questions for me:

 

If he catches that ball in the 9th, do the Cubs win?

 

Did the Cubs win?

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I just watched another player with sunglasses on lose a ball in the sun. It was James Loney, and now the Cards have 1st and 3rd with one out as opposed to runner on 1st with 2 outs with Truffle-favorite Ryan Ludwick at the plate

[illiniguy]

Cards tie it up.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Cardinals just tied the game at 2.

[17 Seconds]

Lifetime Cardinal fan Blake Dewitt helping out his favorite team.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

If he catches the ball, the Cubs win. So yes, he is directly responsible for them not winning.

Even so, you'd surely have to admit that he's not responsible for the Cubs losing, right? Only not winning in the 9th.

 

Answer these 2 questions for me:

 

If he catches that ball in the 9th, do the Cubs win?

 

Did the Cubs win?

 

 

If Fukudome hit the ball into the river every at bat, do the Cubs win?

 

Did the Cubs win?

[Jon]

If he catches the ball, the Cubs win. So yes, he is directly responsible for them not winning.

Even so, you'd surely have to admit that he's not responsible for the Cubs losing, right? Only not winning in the 9th.

If that play would have resulted in the winning run scoring, then I'd say he's responsible for them losing. But that didn't happen so I don't entirely blame him for the loss. I do entirely blame him for not winning though. If that makes any sense.

You said before that the loss was entirely on him. Putting the tie on him is quite different, although it still competely disregards everything else that happened in that game.

[illiniguy]

Cardinals just tied the game at 2.

What can you do at this point. Everyone who knows anything about baseball knows that their team is garbage. But, yet once again, here they are.

[Guest]

If he catches the ball, the Cubs win. So yes, he is directly responsible for them not winning.

Even so, you'd surely have to admit that he's not responsible for the Cubs losing, right? Only not winning in the 9th.

 

Answer these 2 questions for me:

 

If he catches that ball in the 9th, do the Cubs win?

 

Did the Cubs win?

 

How is the second one relevant? The Cubs didn't lose on that play.

[illiniguy]

If he catches the ball, the Cubs win. So yes, he is directly responsible for them not winning.

Even so, you'd surely have to admit that he's not responsible for the Cubs losing, right? Only not winning in the 9th.

 

Answer these 2 questions for me:

 

If he catches that ball in the 9th, do the Cubs win?

 

Did the Cubs win?

 

 

If Fukudome hit the ball into the river every at bat, do the Cubs win?

 

 

Did the Cubs win?

Right, because hitting a homer in every at bat is the same thing as catching a routine pop out. Edited May 25, 2008 by illiniguy

[Guest]

I just watched another player with sunglasses on lose a ball in the sun. It was James Loney, and now the Cards have 1st and 3rd with one out as opposed to runner on 1st with 2 outs with Truffle-favorite Ryan Ludwick at the plate

 

At least Soriano didn't get hit in the head like Loney did.

 

Kershaw needs to recover here.

[Guest]

If he catches the ball, the Cubs win. So yes, he is directly responsible for them not winning.

Even so, you'd surely have to admit that he's not responsible for the Cubs losing, right? Only not winning in the 9th.

 

Answer these 2 questions for me:

 

If he catches that ball in the 9th, do the Cubs win?

 

Did the Cubs win?

 

 

If Fukudome hit the ball into the river every at bat, do the Cubs win?

 

Did the Cubs win?

Right, because hitting a homer in every at bat is the same thing as catching a routine pop out.

 

You missed Tranny's point.

[illiniguy]

If he catches the ball, the Cubs win. So yes, he is directly responsible for them not winning.

Even so, you'd surely have to admit that he's not responsible for the Cubs losing, right? Only not winning in the 9th.

 

Answer these 2 questions for me:

 

If he catches that ball in the 9th, do the Cubs win?

 

Did the Cubs win?

 

 

If Fukudome hit the ball into the river every at bat, do the Cubs win?

 

Did the Cubs win?

Right, because hitting a homer in every at bat is the same thing as catching a routine pop out.

 

You missed Tranny's point.

No I get it. This loss is on Lou. The guy is a butcher in left, you take him out once you get the lead. It isn't that hard to figure out.

[Jon]

If he catches the ball, the Cubs win. So yes, he is directly responsible for them not winning.

Even so, you'd surely have to admit that he's not responsible for the Cubs losing, right? Only not winning in the 9th.

 

Answer these 2 questions for me:

 

If he catches that ball in the 9th, do the Cubs win?

 

Did the Cubs win?

 

 

If Fukudome hit the ball into the river every at bat, do the Cubs win?

 

 

Did the Cubs win?

Right, because hitting a homer in every at bat is the same thing as catching a routine pop out.

Of course not. Hitting a HR every AB would be far more significant.

[17 Seconds]

If he catches the ball, the Cubs win. So yes, he is directly responsible for them not winning.

Even so, you'd surely have to admit that he's not responsible for the Cubs losing, right? Only not winning in the 9th.

 

Answer these 2 questions for me:

 

If he catches that ball in the 9th, do the Cubs win?

 

Did the Cubs win?

 

 

If Fukudome hit the ball into the river every at bat, do the Cubs win?

 

Did the Cubs win?

 

Is Fukudome expected to hit the ball in the river every at-bat? Also, there is no guarantee the Cubs win if he hit a home run every at-bat. It's assumed, but not guaranteed. If Soriano catches the ball the game is 100% over.

[Jon]

I must say that this is one of the most ridiculous debates I've participated in. If you don't want Soriano because he dropped a ball in the 9th, then you'd have to take out his 2-run HR. And guess what, the Cubs still lose.

 

I've heard of pivotal plays in a game, but to reduce a 5-4 game down to a game-tying run is a bit puzzling.

 

Why are you assuming that the replacement player wouldn't have done anything offensively?

I'm not assuming anything. I simply said that one play that results in a tie game, not even a loss, isn't the only play that effects the outcome of a game.

 

Aren't you assuming that the Cubs still would have had the lead without Soriano's 2-run HR and every other play Soriano was involved in?

[Mizzou]

One thing I think we can all agree on is that Jim Edmonds is entirely washed up. Get him out of here.

[Butterscup1679666578]

I just watched another player with sunglasses on lose a ball in the sun. It was James Loney, and now the Cards have 1st and 3rd with one out as opposed to runner on 1st with 2 outs with Truffle-favorite Ryan Ludwick at the plate

 

So wait, we should be wishing Loney was dead/injured now, right?