Hornbuckle

Neat debate tactic you've got there. Mind if I try using it against you? ...ahem "My experiences say the exact opposite of the crap you're espousing. And, since I have no need of any data to back up my claim, don't even bother trying to contradict me." Not sure what to tell you. If you want to start documenting the incidents, be my guest. It's not a tactic - it's all I've got. Apparently, I'm not the only one noticing these things, am I? FergieJ31 pointed out that he's been going to games for 25 years and that he's noticed more incidents in the past 5 years by far. Care to call his point crap as well?

Careful getting down from that cross. It doesn't sound like you're an unbiased source here. I can't dispute what you said, because it's all a person's opinion. You wouldn't expect Cubs fans to have an accurate opinion of White Sox fans would you? And, I'll usually be the last person to back up some of the tools at Cubs games.(See my rant titled the 4 people you meet at Cubs games.) The throwing all the balls on the field was stupid. Throwing trash on the field in the past was stupid. But this type of obnoxious tool behavior DOES happen everywhere. And at a pretty similar ratio. As CubinNY alluded to, you can't claim that us who rely on stats so heavily in baseball should be able to realize the ratio is greater, and then use your anecdotal evidence to prove it. It's flat out an opinion, and there's no way to prove it. Brennamen's biased, he's a Reds announcer and a senile old coot. We're biased, we're Cubs fans. You're biased, you're a Sox fan(I think) Oh well. First of all, is it that far fetched to think that I might be banned after my first post? I appreciate not getting banned (thanks) but it doesn't seem to take much to get the "troll" label and threatened with banning. And FTR, no, I'm not a Sox fan, and I'm not a Reds fan. I chose not to mention what team I am a fan of because just as with Brennaman rant (which WAS UNPROFESSIONAL) many who choose to disagree wil come up with some reason (like Marty being bitter) as a crutch to ignore any of the points made. I can't be at every game in every park seeing every delay and tallying them. All I have is my broad experience going to games. That experience has given me all the information that I need to make the points that I've made.

Good point.

Surely you have data to back this opinion up? How on earth could he have data on this? Do they have a "drunk and idiot fans in attendance" stat somewhere on baseball-reference.com? C'mon. And that's the point. Wrigley is no better or worse than any other ball park that has a large attendance (or most that have a small one). If one doesn't like drunk idiots, the best option is to stay away from places that drunk idiots populate. To state in unequivocal terms that Wrigley is terrible compared to other ballparks is pretty asinine. I never said it was "terrible." In fact, if you read my post, I believe I said that I love going there. People can continue to point out that I don't have stats, but I know what my experiences at ballparks around the country have been like, and at the same time, no one has any stats to refute those experiences. Yes - this is my opinion.

Not going to take a "shot" at you, but I'm wondering who exactly you are talking to. For the most part I've heard people saying pretty much the exact same thing here. Wrigley HAS more fans, therefore there are more idiots. So I'm confused what is making you so upset. And regardless of whether there are drunken idiots at Wrigley field, for a team's main broadcaster to flip out the way Marty did, and then the next day lay into his own color man, is both unseemly and unprofessional. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as they say. I think it is more than Wrigley having MORE fans, thus more idiots. Rather, Wrigley has a younger fan base than most due to its location, and a drunker fan base than most, also due to its location (bars everywhere). All of these factors lead to the crazy atmosphere that is Wrigley. While this probably leads to a few more 'incidents' than you see at other parks, it also leads to the unrivaled electricity in the ball-park everyday. In the end, you take the good with the bad. Is the amazing energy in Wrigley worth a few very minor incidents a year? I think the answer to that Q is a no-brainer. What fun would sports be if ever stadium was similar and boring, even if they are less prone to see balls being thrown onto the field or other such 'obnoxious' acts. I'd say that you have a fair point to a certain extent. There is an added buzz to the Wrigley experience and atmophere, which for the most part, I love. And I agree, sometimes you have to take the bad with the good. However, there is an obnoxious element to it, and those who want to ignore that the obnoxious element is a blemish on the cubs fan base are kidding themselves. So if you're going to take the bad with the good, you better be willing to acknowledge not expect to get the critisism or be able to just brush it off as invalid.

Not going to take a "shot" at you, but I'm wondering who exactly you are talking to. For the most part I've heard people saying pretty much the exact same thing here. Wrigley HAS more fans, therefore there are more idiots. So I'm confused what is making you so upset. And regardless of whether there are drunken idiots at Wrigley field, for a team's main broadcaster to flip out the way Marty did, and then the next day lay into his own color man, is both unseemly and unprofessional. People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as they say. I'm "talking" to all of those who want to make excuses for the behavior of the cubs fan base at Wrigley. For instance, I see "Wrigley HAS more fans, therefore there are more idiots" and I disagree. Yes, the Cubs have more fans, which equals more idiots, but from my experience it's pretty clear (no I don't have data) that when you go to a sold out game at Wrigley vs. a sold out game somewhere else there are a hell of a lot more idiots at Wrigley. My math shows that not only are there more (like you said), but there is a greater percentage of the fan base that are disrespectful, unknowledgeable, and there for the party, not for the baseball. And before I go on, please spare me the "generalization" speech. I'm not going to qualify every statement with "many, not all" or "I know that not all cubs fans are drunks" or "other teams have them too" or my posts will be more annoyingly long than they already are. Do we really need to get into the semantics?

I can’t take it anymore, between you guys and the callers on sports radio I have to vent. If I hear one more person point out that “EVERY TEAM HAS IT’S DRUNK FANS! Blah, blah, blah.” Yeah. We get it. And it’s true, but that’s not the point… you know what? Every team also has guys that’s hit a home run. That doesn’t mean that every team has a HR hitting line-up. The point is that you find MORE drunk idiots at Wrigley field than you do at most ballparks. It’s about percentages, and probability. You think with as many stat-heads as there are on this site that you would get that. With the proper sample size, I’m sure you’ll find that there are MORE. No stadium is void of drunk morons. They DO all have them. But it’s not fair to go to one game in say, Cleveland, and see one drunk moron and determine that the bleachers there are as bad as Wrigley’s. There’s a higher percentage of drunk meat-heads at Wrigley and you’re more probable to run into them, and I always do. Face it, Wrigley is the perfect magnet for these morons. It’s a novelty. It’s a beautiful, historic park in a great neighborhood with a ton of bars and the prices to go to a game and sit in the bleachers are high enough to alienate the family demographic. Instead, it attracts that 25 year-old 75K per year consultant frat-guy (I was in one, by the way, so I’m not knocking it, I just know) demographic who think their entitled to whatever they want to do. And a significant percentage of those people aren’t there for the game – they are there to drink, to pick up, and baseball is an afterthought. It’s only a bonus if the cubs are winning. Yeah – of course they’ll act like they’re into the game and claim that they’re “die hard” but then you start talking to them and you find out that they grew up a fan of another MLB team, went to a Big Ten school, and then got a job in Chicago and now they’re a cubs fan. Because it’s the cool thing to do. And let’s not forget that many of these same guys and gals live right in the neighborhood or somewhere they can easily get to by bus or train where they don’t have to worry about driving home. And then this argument about how “you should see Boston, Philly, and NY fans.” You know what, I have. And there are a lot of drunk, rude, offensive fans there too but again that’s not the only point. As offensive and drunky as it gets in those bleachers, do you HONESTLY believe that more games have been delayed in those parks from people throwing things on the field than there have been at Wrigley? Really? No, I don’t have any stats but I’d be willing to bet A LOT of money it hasn’t happened as much in any of those parks than in Wrigley. Again, there are too many fans in the bleachers that don’t care about the game and additionally don’t respect the game. They just think “Hey – that guy just threw something on the field because Dusty made an illegal double-switch. What’s a double switch anyway? I should do that too. That would be funny. And cool. There goes my beer cup.” And not to mention – those are all east coast teams – those fans are expected to be relatively rude. It’s part of the culture. When it’s all said and done, Philly, Boston, NY do have obnoxious fans too, but it’s a different type of obnoxious. At least, as a whole, they respect the game. I live in Chicago and I love going to Wrigley. Don’t take it so personally. When the obnoxious, drunk, go-to-cubs-game-because-it’s-the-scene “fans” are mentioned, it doesn’t have to be about you specifically. Maybe no one on this board is the type of Wrigley frequenter that I’m talking about. In fact, I suppose it’s likely that you’re not. But just accept it – your team and that stadium attracts MORE drunk and obnoxious morons than most stadiums, and if you don’t believe that I believe the love for your team is blinding your vision and you’re using Brennaman’s “bitterness” as a cop out not to believe it. Thanks for your time and of course you’ll disagree and take your shots at me, however I’m sure I’ll never be allowed rebut, or for that matter, ever be allowed to post here again. Oh well.

He's not very smart because his team has been sucking, showing no life, his team is getting the crapped kicked out of them by the in city rival and he gets barrelled over and knocks the crap out of the person that barrelled him over? So Barretts a jerk, but AJ's not for slapping the plate like an idiot? I think it was great, Barretts the only one on this team that gives a crap. I've been in a few fights in my life so does that make me a jerk, Iq of about 50? What did you want him to do? If he just took it and didn't act like anything was the matter, people would be jumping on him cause he didnt' show any fire.. I don't get it.. 1. The rundown play. 2. The run-in with Oswalt. 3. The fight with AJP. 4. The incredibly dumb called pitches. 5. The impatience at the plate. 6. The quotes in the press. The guy is a dim-witted moron. So he hits 270 every year, big deal. He still sucks, and he is not a long-term solution, contract notwithstanding. Two things: - Don't forget the Dave Roberts "you're not allowed to steal on me" incident. - How is slapping the plate any different then standing and watching home runs leave the park or giving an emphatic bat flip, ala Jaque Jones and good 'ol Sammy? You can't have it both ways and you can't choose when to call a play dirty or non-dirty depending on your mood. That's what irks me guys.

So far, every single person I've heard comment on this incident, including Dusty and Barrett himself, have deemed the hit clean. I can't figure out what it is about this play that some of you don't get. He was blocking the plate. If he didn't think he had a chance to catch the ball and get AJ out, he could have easily stepped up and gotten out of the way. You block the plate, you get hit. Pretty simple.

Please. The ball was 10 feet away. Slide around him and touch the plate. How did AJ know the ball was 10 feet away (which it wasn't)? He can see that the ball wasn't there. And yes, the ball was about 10 feet away when he committed to train-wrecking Barrett and ended up hitting AJ about the same time as the collision. So you're only allowed to run over the catcher when he has the ball in his golve huh? Of course. Here's something. If Barrett, who had a better idea of where the ball was and if he was going to have it in time to get AJ out, knew that he wouldn't have it in time, why didn't he get out of the way and not black the plate? I'm very interested in your answer to that.

Please. The ball was 10 feet away. Slide around him and touch the plate. How did AJ know the ball was 10 feet away (which it wasn't)? . Exactly. But I'm the one that's blind.

Take your blinders off, watch it again, and tell me its clean. I love how people expect a guy going full speed into home to gauge where exactly the ball is and what velocity it's coming in at. Barrett was blocking the plate. That's all that needs to be said. Clean play.

Anyone who doesn't think that AJ running over Barrett was clean is really letting their fandom getting in the way of what they know about baseball. That was as clean as any catcher being run over that I have ever seen.

Wow. Just a bit of nit-picking, but... I've seen a few people mention stepping on home plate to complete the out, but Burrell was automatically out since first base was occupied, no? I wasn't able to see the play and haven't seen the replay yet, so maybe I'm missing something, but stepping on home is a moot point if I'm not mistaken.