Jon

Lee swung at ball 4 again and everything goes wrong for the Rockies.

I thought Soto pulled that ball more.

The rain is less than an hour away.

There's a whole lot of rain out west, including t-storms. Let's keep our fingers crossed: http://image.weather.com/web/radar/us_ord_closeradar_plus_usen.jpg

That would be sweet. I'm not sure why I avoided finding out the score once I started watching and saw Johnson and Wolff out there.

If a player was actually trying to hit into an easy DP, that's what the swing would look like.

2006 Big Ten football revenue data: Ohio State - $59,142,071 Michigan - $50,982,629 Iowa - $45,335,026 Penn State - $44,014,052 Michigan State - $40,795,755 Wisconsin - $34,105,991 Purdue - $25,134,139 Illinois - $20,764,472 Minnesota - $17,390,376 Indiana - $17,033,871 Northwestern - $15,513,675

Didn't Corey Patterson get blasted by the media for a "just the game" comment very similar to this one that some misconstrued as "just a game?"

I can't recall if the match has started yet and since I'm recording it and don't want it spoiled, I'm not going to read the last few posts so I'm not sure if this has been posted yet:

That'd be some transfer fee.

It'll take me another day to get over the fact that Edmonds hit in front of Soto. Two lefties in a row, no less. Too damn funny.

Screw athletic prospects. I'd love to be able to run that fast just for the heck of it, although a 4' vertical is 2nd on my list.

How terrible. What's with the differing accounts?

That was a ridiculous game. Dominating road performance to say the least. Jozy had a nice header for NYRB's only goal. Chicago's central defense is awesome. Those two guys could anchor a back line in Europe and both probably will some day. Yeah, it was a nice header, but the defender on the post wasn't paying attention. I don't think it should have gone in.

Again, expectations have no impact on the game. Nor does his contract. The only thing that influences the outcome of any given game is what actually happens. You can't disregard a 2-run HR just because he's paid more or should make a catch, especially when one resulted in two runs and the other resulted in a single run. Picking one play out of a handful that resulted in runs just because it happened with 2 outs in the 9th is no less arbitrary than picking one that happened any other inning and giving it more importance than it deserves. And that doesn't even take into accounts all of the other plays.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

So if you think catching routine fly balls and hitting HRs are even in terms of expectations, one play that results in 2 runs should be more valuable than another play that results in 1 run.