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

[Sosa21MVP]

If Ted Lilly didn't allow Luis Rivas to hit that 2nd HR......

[Guest]

If Ted Lilly didn't allow Luis Rivas to hit that 2nd HR......

 

It's Soriano's fault Lilly threw that pitch.

[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?

 

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.

 

Of course, if Soriano drops the ball, it's 100% the game is NOT over and the Cubs haven't lost.

[CubColtPacer]

If you had to take these performances from a player every day, which one would you not want to take?

 

The guy who went 6 innings, 10 hits, 2 walks, only had 2 strikeouts, and gave up 5 extra base hits including 3 home runs. He ended up giving 4 runs.

 

The guy who went 0 for 5 with 2 K's.

 

The guy who went 0 for 4 with a walk

 

The guy who went 1 for 4 with a home run and a walk, and also had a misplay that let in a run.

 

I would win a lot more games taking Soriano's performance everyday rather than Fukudome's or Lilly's. If the Cubs had been behind from the beginning of the game until the end, Lilly would have been the one blamed. Just because the Cubs took the lead and Soriano's misplay happened to be the 27th out rather than the 10th, that means it's a lot more important?

[bcl412]

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?

 

I agree with you Jon but what if, for fun, we assume Soriano should have caught Pittsburgh's first home run (which it could easily be argued that he should have.)

[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?

 

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.

 

Okay, replace the HR in every AB with Fukudome hits the ball 1/8 inch lower on the barrel on his deep flyout, then it becomes a HR and we have 2 runs we didn't before. Do we win then?

[Guest]

CCP is more eloquent than I.

[Mizzou]

Just because the Cubs took the lead and Soriano's misplay happened to be the 27th out rather than the 10th, that means it's a lot more important?

Considering that that play cost us a win, yeah, I'd say it was pretty important.

[17 Seconds]

The Dodgers are 0-16 w/RISP (0 for last 26 overall) against the Cards this series. Great. You know it will turn around against the Cubs though.

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

Dodgers take a 3-2 lead.

[Guest]

The Dodgers are 0-16 w/RISP (0 for last 26 overall) against the Cards this series. Great. You know it will turn around against the Cubs though.

 

Already turned around against the Cards. 3-2 Dodgers.

[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?

 

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.

Expectations, salary, etc. have no impact on what actually happens in the game.

 

If Soriano makes a single catch on a single play, there's no guarantee the Cubs win. The Cubs still would have had 27 or more outs and the Pirates still would have had 26 or more outs. Just because it could have been the final play of the game doesn't make it the only play of the game. Everything that came up to that point and everything that happened afterwards does not magically become a non-factor just because of what could have happened in a single play. And again, the drop only caused the game to be tied. The Cubs didn't even lose because of it.

[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.

 

Okay, replace the HR in every AB with Fukudome hits the ball 1/8 inch lower on the barrel on his deep flyout, then it becomes a HR and we have 2 runs we didn't before. Do we win then?

 

Probably, but it's not guaranteed. Everything would be different.

 

I'm not sure why you keep bringing this up anyways, because hitting home runs is completely different than catching routine fly balls.

 

You still haven't answered my 2 questions.

[killthegoat06]

3-2 dodgers in the 6th

[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.

Expectations, salary, etc. have no impact on what actually happens in the game.

 

If Soriano makes a single catch on a single play, there's no guarantee the Cubs win. The Cubs still would have had 27 or more outs and the Pirates still would have had 26 or more outs. Just because it could have been the final play of the game doesn't make it the only play of the game. Everything that came up to that point and everything that happened afterwards does not magically become a non-factor just because of what could have happened in a single play. And again, the drop only caused the game to be tied. The Cubs didn't even lose because of it.

 

I'll ask this again.

 

If Soriano makes the catch, do the Cubs 100%, without a doubt, win the game?

 

Did the Cubs win the game?

[Fred Hornkohl]

If frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their little butts on the ground, eh?

[CubColtPacer]

Just because the Cubs took the lead and Soriano's misplay happened to be the 27th out rather than the 10th, that means it's a lot more important?

Considering that that play cost us a win, yeah, I'd say it was pretty important.

 

So if a player goes 0-6 going into the 15th inning, and then gets a game-winning hit, he's a bigger hero than another player who hits 2 home runs in the first 5 innings of the game, but then struck out with runners on twice in extra innings?

[Guest]

Solid debut for Clayton...6 IP, 2 ER, 7 K.

 

They better not send him back to the minors.

[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?

 

I agree with you Jon but what if, for fun, we assume Soriano should have caught Pittsburgh's first home run (which it could easily be argued that he should have.)

Then he still would have made two bad plays that played large roles in two runs (the pitchers don't get off the hook) and one good play that resulted in two runs (with the assistance of the baserunner). There was a whole lot of baseball played outside of those three plays. No one play can be taken out of the context of an entire game and be credited/blamed for the end result.

[illiniguy]

Great man on third no outs for the cards.

[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?

 

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.

Expectations, salary, etc. have no impact on what actually happens in the game.

 

If Soriano makes a single catch on a single play, there's no guarantee the Cubs win. The Cubs still would have had 27 or more outs and the Pirates still would have had 26 or more outs. Just because it could have been the final play of the game doesn't make it the only play of the game. Everything that came up to that point and everything that happened afterwards does not magically become a non-factor just because of what could have happened in a single play. And again, the drop only caused the game to be tied. The Cubs didn't even lose because of it.

 

I'll ask this again.

 

If Soriano makes the catch, do the Cubs 100%, without a doubt, win the game?

 

Did the Cubs win the game?

I'll answer only if you also admit that if Marmol had struck out the final batter, the Cubs would have won the game, so clearly the loss is on him. Or if Lilly had thrown a perfect game, the Cubs would have won. So we can blame him, as well. And Fukudome never hit those 5 HRs. What's up with that?

 

Of course, if I say yes to those two questions, does that mean that Soriano is to blame?

 

The answer would be no since all it proves is that the Cubs didn't win the game.

[17 Seconds]

I just listened to the Pat & Ron call of the Soriano play. Santo did the same "oohhhhh noooooo" as the Brant Brown play.

[Laura]

I was passing through the kitchen and heard that call and hoped it was a bizarrely timed replay of the Brant Brown call ...

[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.

Expectations, salary, etc. have no impact on what actually happens in the game.

 

If Soriano makes a single catch on a single play, there's no guarantee the Cubs win. The Cubs still would have had 27 or more outs and the Pirates still would have had 26 or more outs. Just because it could have been the final play of the game doesn't make it the only play of the game. Everything that came up to that point and everything that happened afterwards does not magically become a non-factor just because of what could have happened in a single play. And again, the drop only caused the game to be tied. The Cubs didn't even lose because of it.

 

I'll ask this again.

 

If Soriano makes the catch, do the Cubs 100%, without a doubt, win the game?

 

Did the Cubs win the game?

I'll answer only if you also admit that if Marmol had struck out the final batter, the Cubs would have won the game, so clearly the loss is on him. Or if Lilly had thrown a perfect game, the Cubs would have won. So we can blame him, as well. And Fukudome never hit those 5 HRs. What's up with that?

 

Of course, if I say yes to those two questions, does that mean that Soriano is to blame?

 

The answer would be no since all it proves is that the Cubs didn't win the game.

 

Ugh. None of those things are routine. Catching a fly ball is routine. A player isn't expected to hit 5 home runs. A pitcher isn't expected to strike out every single batter or never have a bad outing. An outfielder is expected to catch routine fly balls.

[Little Slide Rooter]

Did Brant Brown have a 136 million dollar contract? My memories a bit hazy.