ESPN doing a great job of piling on

[davearm2]

Actually, a single fan being blamed for a team and fanbase's nearly a century's worth of misery continuing is a pretty remarkable and interesting story.

 

is it as remarkable as blaming livestock?

Exactly.

 

The whole premise that the Cubs lost because of a Curse or a Goat or Steve Bartman is nauseating and should be an insult to every reasonable person's intelligence.

[Sammy Sofa]

Actually, a single fan being blamed for a team and fanbase's nearly a century's worth of misery continuing is a pretty remarkable and interesting story.

 

is it as remarkable as blaming livestock?

Exactly.

 

The whole premise that the Cubs lost because of a Curse or a Goat or Steve Bartman is nauseating and should be an insult to every reasonable person's intelligence.

 

Neither of which anyone is arguing here. And yes, the goat story is a story. I don't see how you're not grasping the difference between "OMG, THOSE ARE THE REASONS THE CUBS LOST!!!" and "wow, those are weird stories." The Bartman saga is interesting. A guy trying to bring his damn goat to a ballgame and being turned away and then supposedly cursing the team is interesting. It's like you're arguing that everyone should just shrug these stories off or ignore them, as if acknowledging how unusual they are is somehow condoning meatballism.

[SpongeWorthy]

Yeah, assigning blame to Bartman or not is pretty much completely irrelevant to whether it's a story or worthy of documentary or not. What is indisputably true is that his life changed forever in an instant because of that one play.

 

Normal man caught up in incredible turn of events and becoming a(n) (in)famous figure is nothing specific to the Cubs or Bartman and will always make for storytelling fodder.

[davearm2]

Actually, a single fan being blamed for a team and fanbase's nearly a century's worth of misery continuing is a pretty remarkable and interesting story.

 

is it as remarkable as blaming livestock?

Exactly.

 

The whole premise that the Cubs lost because of a Curse or a Goat or Steve Bartman is nauseating and should be an insult to every reasonable person's intelligence.

 

Neither of which anyone is arguing here. And yes, the goat story is a story. I don't see how you're not grasping the difference between "OMG, THOSE ARE THE REASONS THE CUBS LOST!!!" and "wow, those are weird stories." The Bartman saga is interesting. A guy trying to bring his damn goat to a ballgame and being turned away and then supposedly cursing the team is interesting. It's like you're arguing that everyone should just shrug these stories off or ignore them, as if acknowledging how unusual they are is somehow condoning meatballism.

Well I'll say it again. To me these are not interesting stories. More like nauseating.

 

And there is no Bartman saga if everyone agrees the guy's not to blame, so your premise is immediately faulty.

[Sammy Sofa]

Well I'll say it again. To me these are not interesting stories. More like nauseating.

 

And there is no Bartman saga if everyone agrees the guy's not to blame, so your premise is immediately faulty.

 

No, there is obviously a story because he's involved whether it's his fault or not. For better or for worse he was the guy there that went for the ball and effectively ran into Alou as he was reaching over the wall, hence why he was thrust into the spotlight. If YOU refuse to see this is an interesting story, fine, that's your prerogative, but if you're going to also refuse to acknowledge why tons of people would find the whole spectacle interesting (WITHOUT BLAMING HIM FOR ANYTHING) then you're on your own with that. Him being at fault or not isn't what makes it a story...it's that a nobody, average fan was forced into the surreal and unusual position he ended up in because of the larger context of what was going on and where he was and what team was involved, plus you have the story of how it's become this thing that the Cubs are forever saddled with until they actually go to another WS. Him not being at fault is irrelevant because it's still a thing that happened on the public stage that was very unique and "cinematic."

[Sammy Sofa]

Yeah, assigning blame to Bartman or not is pretty much completely irrelevant to whether it's a story or worthy of documentary or not. What is indisputably true is that his life changed forever in an instant because of that one play.

 

Normal man caught up in incredible turn of events and becoming a(n) (in)famous figure is nothing specific to the Cubs or Bartman and will always make for storytelling fodder.

 

Precisely.

[davearm2]

Well I'll say it again. To me these are not interesting stories. More like nauseating.

 

And there is no Bartman saga if everyone agrees the guy's not to blame, so your premise is immediately faulty.

 

No, there is obviously a story because he's involved whether it's his fault or not. For better or for worse he was the guy there that went for the ball and effectively ran into Alou as he was reaching over the wall, hence why he was thrust into the spotlight. If YOU refuse to see this is an interesting story, fine, that's your prerogative, but if you're going to also refuse to acknowledge why tons of people would find the whole spectacle interesting (WITHOUT BLAMING HIM FOR ANYTHING) then you're on your own with that. Him being at fault or not isn't what makes it a story...it's that a nobody, average fan was forced into the surreal and unusual position he ended up in because of the larger context of what was going on and where he was and what team was involved, plus you have the story of how it's become this thing that the Cubs are forever saddled with until they actually go to another WS. Him not being at fault is irrelevant because it's still a thing that happened on the public stage that was very unique and "cinematic."

Sorry, no. No blame = no story. A story/documentary like this exists only because some folks blame Bartman for what happened.

 

Look this thing has life because the presumption is the Cubs' fate was altered by Steve Bartman. I don't buy that. Thus all of the rest is annoying and misguided IMO. A story that should never have been a story isn't interesting, it's dumb.

 

Let me ask you this. Would anybody be talking about this (or airing documentaries) if Alou had stumbled and fallen, and the ball had landed harmlessly in foul territory? Of course not.

[TruffleShuffle]

you don't think anyone would still talk about it if alou didn't catch a routine fly ball (that landed in foul territory) because he just fell over????

[davearm2]

you don't think anyone would still talk about it if alou didn't catch a routine fly ball (that landed in foul territory) because he just fell over????

They'd talk about it significantly less that if, say, an IF booted a DP ball.

 

Hope this helps.

[imb]

The fact that the most sad-sack franchise in sports was on the doorstep of the world series, but saw its chances collapse in the same 30-minute period as a fan absentmindedly interjecting him at the worst possible time into their pathetic history is more than enough to qualify for a documentary.

 

EDIT: It's more like Alou going over to make a routine catch and then collapsing and dying on the field.

[Sammy Sofa]

The fact that the most sad-sack franchise in sports was on the doorstep of the world series, but saw its chances collapse in the same 30-minute period as a fan absentmindedly interjecting him at the worst possible time into their pathetic history is more than enough to qualify for a documentary.

 

EDIT: It's more like Alou going over to make a routine catch and then collapsing and dying on the field.

 

Exactly. Bartman's not the reason they lost the series, but his sudden moment of fame was the first part of a bizarre series of events and inaction and reactions that makes for a good story.

 

Sorry, no. No blame = no story. A story/documentary like this exists only because some folks blame Bartman for what happened.

 

Look this thing has life because the presumption is the Cubs' fate was altered by Steve Bartman. I don't buy that. Thus all of the rest is annoying and misguided IMO. A story that should never have been a story isn't interesting, it's dumb.

 

Yes, the documentary exists because of what happened to Bartman. It's an interesting story because it's something that just doesn't happen. You keep dancing around the blame issue, first seemingly saying people here were blaming him and now automatically assuming that the documentary is blaming him. You're also inexplicably declaring that this is somehow only interesting if what happened was actually his fault, which doesn't make any sense. Whether you like it or not the story exists because of the timing of what happened and the larger context it happened in. It doesn't hinge on whether or not anything was actually his fault.

[davearm2]

The fact that the most sad-sack franchise in sports was on the doorstep of the world series, but saw its chances collapse in the same 30-minute period as a fan absentmindedly interjecting him at the worst possible time into their pathetic history is more than enough to qualify for a documentary.

 

EDIT: It's more like Alou going over to make a routine catch and then collapsing and dying on the field.

 

Exactly. Bartman's not the reason they lost the series, but his sudden moment of fame was the first part of a bizarre series of events and inaction and reactions that makes for a good story.

 

Sorry, no. No blame = no story. A story/documentary like this exists only because some folks blame Bartman for what happened.

 

Look this thing has life because the presumption is the Cubs' fate was altered by Steve Bartman. I don't buy that. Thus all of the rest is annoying and misguided IMO. A story that should never have been a story isn't interesting, it's dumb.

 

Yes, the documentary exists because of what happened to Bartman. It's an interesting story because it's something that just doesn't happen. You keep dancing around the blame issue, first seemingly saying people here were blaming him and now automatically assuming that the documentary is blaming him. You're also inexplicably declaring that this is somehow only interesting if what happened was actually his fault, which doesn't make any sense. Whether you like it or not the story exists because of the timing of what happened and the larger context it happened in. It doesn't hinge on whether or not anything was actually his fault.

I'm not dancing around the blame issue at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. I've made it as explicit as possible: without blame, there is no story. Period.

 

It's great you find the story interesting. I think it's maddening. Steve Bartman had nothing to do with the Cubs' collapse.

[Sammy Sofa]

Of course the reaction to Bartman is part of the story. The reaction in any major event if always part of the story, especially when it comes to sports. You're talking like even discussing what happened to Bartman is off limits, like it wasn't this bizarre thing that obviously happened. Your argument is basically "well, if it wasn't such an interesting story then nobody would be interested." Well, no [expletive].

 

And saying he had nothing to do with the collapse is asinine. Of course he did. There's a difference between him being involved and him being at fault.

Edited June 21, 2011 by Sammy Sofa

[imb]

The fact that the most sad-sack franchise in sports was on the doorstep of the world series, but saw its chances collapse in the same 30-minute period as a fan absentmindedly interjecting him at the worst possible time into their pathetic history is more than enough to qualify for a documentary.

 

EDIT: It's more like Alou going over to make a routine catch and then collapsing and dying on the field.

 

Exactly. Bartman's not the reason they lost the series, but his sudden moment of fame was the first part of a bizarre series of events and inaction and reactions that makes for a good story.

 

Sorry, no. No blame = no story. A story/documentary like this exists only because some folks blame Bartman for what happened.

 

Look this thing has life because the presumption is the Cubs' fate was altered by Steve Bartman. I don't buy that. Thus all of the rest is annoying and misguided IMO. A story that should never have been a story isn't interesting, it's dumb.

 

Yes, the documentary exists because of what happened to Bartman. It's an interesting story because it's something that just doesn't happen. You keep dancing around the blame issue, first seemingly saying people here were blaming him and now automatically assuming that the documentary is blaming him. You're also inexplicably declaring that this is somehow only interesting if what happened was actually his fault, which doesn't make any sense. Whether you like it or not the story exists because of the timing of what happened and the larger context it happened in. It doesn't hinge on whether or not anything was actually his fault.

I'm not dancing around the blame issue at all. Quite the opposite, in fact. I've made it as explicit as possible: without blame, there is no story. Period.

 

It's great you find the story interesting. I think it's maddening. Steve Bartman had nothing to do with the Cubs' collapse.

 

http://i.imgur.com/KPv3N.gif

[davearm2]

Of course the reaction to Bartman is part of the story. The reaction in any major event if always part of the story, especially when it comes to sports. You're talking like even discussing what happened to Bartman is off limits, like it wasn't this bizarre thing that obviously happened. Your argument is basically "well, if it wasn't such an interesting story then nobody would be interested." Well, no [expletive].

 

And saying he had nothing to do with the collapse is asinine. Of course he did. There's a difference between him being involved and him being at fault.

Look if Steve Bartman had never been born, then the Cubs' history would be exactly what it is now. Some other fan would have been sitting in that seat, and would have reached for that ball, and hey, maybe some other fan would have actually caught it... not that it matters.

 

So yeah, the story of how some poor schmuck was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and had his life ruined as a result, isn't what I'd call interesting.

 

Nor is the story about how the delusional fanbase of a sad sack franchise has a new, pathetic, irrelevant scapegoat to blame for its failures what I'd call interesting.

 

But hey if those storylines are interesting to you, go ahead and tune in.

[Sammy Sofa]

Again:

 

"Yeah, if the interesting things never happened there would be no interesting story!"

 

This one is good, too:

 

So yeah, the story of how some poor schmuck was at the wrong place at the wrong time, and had his life ruined as a result, isn't what I'd call interesting.

 

Think of all the various sports, history, news stories you can sum up this way.

 

EXTREME ANALOGY:

 

"Yeah, that Lincoln assassination is pretty boring. If he had just stayed home then you would have seen some REAL action!"

[TruffleShuffle]

everyone knows the cubs would've won that series if guys like ramirez and sosa had spent more time practicing their bunting. that's the real story here.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I vote we just make this the official thread for every awful discussion on the site.

 

We've already got ESPN and Bartman.

 

I'll continue by pointing out what bandwagon jumpers all the alleged Blackhawks fans were during the championship run. The cap went up a ton today, which is huge news for the franchise, and the thread doesn't even get bumped.

 

Also, it's not really rickrolling unless you trick someone into clicking a link thinking they will get something they want to see, but it's actually that music video.

[UMFan83]

I'll continue by pointing out what bandwagon jumpers all the alleged Blackhawks fans were during the championship run. The cap went up a ton today, which is huge news for the franchise, and the thread doesn't even get bumped.

 

Honestly didn't hear that (ironically i get a lot of my Bulls/Bears/Hawks news from NSBB threads), but that's [expletive] awesome. There are several people here who are avidly following the Hawks. I'm pretty sure not bumping a thread on a baseball message board to report news indirectly about a hockey team during the slowest part of the offseason is not a basis to call people bandwagon jumpers.

[jiml60]

I vote we just make this the official thread for every awful discussion on the site.

 

We've already got ESPN and Bartman.

 

I'll continue by pointing out what bandwagon jumpers all the alleged Blackhawks fans were during the championship run. The cap went up a ton today, which is huge news for the franchise, and the thread doesn't even get bumped.

 

Also, it's not really rickrolling unless you trick someone into clicking a link thinking they will get something they want to see, but it's actually that music video.

 

 

A year too late.

[soapy]

So Kyle accuses a bunch of people of being bandwagon fans and nobody bats an eye? Edited June 21, 2011 by soapy

[Ding Dong Johnson]

I assumed he was referring to himself.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I assumed he was referring to himself.

 

With the Blackhawks? Never. I may be schizophrenic (whiny? horrible?) about the Cubs, but the Blackhawks have always been and will always be my favorite sports team.

[Warren Brusstar]

Condescending Cubs fans who insist that anyone who thinks Bartman is even part of the story are meathead mouthbreathers.

 

He was part of the story, and if Alou catches the ball, the Cubs almost surely win the pennant. To be sure, the Cubs had ample other opportunities to win the game, and there are certainly other events (AGonz's error) that caused the loss far more than Bartman's play. But there can be no dispute that it was a critical negative play in an historic game.

 

In my experience, those who contend otherwise generally suffer from "I-am-a-better-fan-than-you" disease.

 

I'm a terrible fan and Bartman is overplayed.

 

He might be overplayed, but that's quite different from insisting that it wasn't a critically important moment in an historic game.

Calling it a critically important moment in an historic game is overplaying it. IMO.

 

And it ignores that Bartman did what any other fan would have done in the same circumstances -- and every other fan in his vicinity was trying to do.

 

What happened was, the Cubs choked in the 8th, and again in game 7. The Bartman nonsense is just needless dramatization.

 

Saying this 1,000 times doesn't make it true. Fans in similar situations -- before and after Bartman -- have routinely refrained from interfering with the home team's attempt to catch the ball. While perhaps most fans would have done likewise, it is not at all accurate to say that "any" fan would have done the same.

[Warren Brusstar]

Actually, a single fan being blamed for a team and fanbase's nearly a century's worth of misery continuing is a pretty remarkable and interesting story.

 

is it as remarkable as blaming livestock?

Exactly.

 

The whole premise that the Cubs lost because of a Curse or a Goat or Steve Bartman is nauseating and should be an insult to every reasonable person's intelligence.

 

Neither of which anyone is arguing here. And yes, the goat story is a story. I don't see how you're not grasping the difference between "OMG, THOSE ARE THE REASONS THE CUBS LOST!!!" and "wow, those are weird stories." The Bartman saga is interesting. A guy trying to bring his damn goat to a ballgame and being turned away and then supposedly cursing the team is interesting. It's like you're arguing that everyone should just shrug these stories off or ignore them, as if acknowledging how unusual they are is somehow condoning meatballism.

Well I'll say it again. To me these are not interesting stories. More like nauseating.

 

And there is no Bartman saga if everyone agrees the guy's not to blame, so your premise is immediately faulty.

 

He is partially to blame. Just like AGonz, Dusty, Prior, Alou, and a whole host of others. No single play is ever singularly responsible for winning or losing a game. But it's equally ridiculous to assert that Bartman's actions didn't effect the outcome of the game. They did.