davearm2

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. I don't know how you could possibly know this. Do you not watch baseball games? Both before and after Bartman, fans of the home team have routinely avoided interfering with their team's efforts to catch balls in the stands. You can make the case that it is *likely* that another fan would have reacted similarly. But you certainly can't assert it as unquestioned fact. Maybe you should watch the replay. Every fan in the area is reaching for that ball. Bartman simply happened to be closest to it. Heck if Bartman had been in the bathroom pissing in a trough at that moment, that ball still isn't getting to Alou's glove.

Another few weeks of this and maybe the Cubs will give him a 4-year extension and bow out of the Pujols/Fielder madness.

Indeed. Trash on the Cubs all day long, but the second class citizen bit is just more pathetic jealous wishful thinking from the Sox side.

Well the Dodger fans that beat the snot out of that Giant fan deserve this.

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.

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. 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.

Yep when your acronym starts to resemble a VIN, it might be time to simplify.

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

Mods please remove "If" from the thread title.

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.

The low side for both is some "can't miss" flameout we've long ago forgotten, not good MLers.

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.

In a lot of ways I'm with you. The Cards enjoyed his monster years, so it's only fair that they should suffer from his overpaid, decline years. Of course that presumes Pujols will be declining, which I happen to think he will, in something resembling the way ARod has declined in his mid-30s: 8-10 win, elite player down to a still-valuable but grossly overpaid 4-6 win player.

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.

You call it remarkable and interesting. I call it absurd and ridiculous.

I wouldn't believe what, that a fan tried to catch a foul ball hit straight to him? Yes, OK, pretend that it had absolutely no meaning outside of that. And no, I'm not blaming Bartman for anything, but to act like it was a total non-story is absurd. The story of that game/series is that the Cubs choked. The story of that specific play is that interference could conceivably have been called (but IMO correctly was not). The identity of the fan involved is a complete non-story. Or should have been.

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. Also the point that, the end result of that play was a 3-2 count. He didn't even lose the batter because of Bartman. In fact, he gained a strike on the play, which very slightly altered the Cubs odds of winning the game. Even if you look at it with the end result of the AB, which was a walk, it is still 3-0 with 2 runners on and one out. Prior still got a double play grounder to end the inning. If you want to argue that Bartman slightly messed with the Cubs composure which tightened everyone up and began a chain of events that led to a collapse as I did above, then you have an argument. But even then, Bartman didn't do all that. Bartman did what any fan would have done, including all the ones around him. It'd be equally as foolish to argue Luis Castillo slightly messed with the Cubs composure which tightened everyone up and began a chain of events that led to a collapse by hitting the ball in the perfect spot.

I wouldn't believe what, that a fan tried to catch a foul ball hit straight to him?

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.

Or two more in the same inning.

Not if St. Louis is even more risk averse than everyone else. They will be just as uncertain of Pujols' health/ability going forward. In fact giving huge money to a guy with a significant health risk seems very un-Cardinal like.

I could be wrong and I'm no doctor, but a broken arm seems less concerning than a broken wrist (DLee).

Yeah, but, like, who cares? He isn't helping the Cubs this year - no one is - and his $18 million next year could almost certainly be put to better use. Unless you believe he's going to reverse course next year (which is not inconceivable given how dominant he was in the second half last year), I just can't be too upset about losing Z's hypothetical production for 2012. NOBODY is saying that if someone wants to pick up the 18 mil that we shouldnt let them have him. The general consensus is that we shouldnt have to pay him more than 1/3 of his salary to pitch for someone else unless were getting some top prospects. If some team really wants to pick up the remainder of his contract, theres probabbly not a poster on this board who wouldnt happily drive him to the airport. Its similar to the Soriano situation. Sure, it would be better if we didnt have to pay him,but considering the production you get, if you do have to pay him anyway, it should be for us. I think you're wrong about that. For instance, anyone that believes that the Cubs can contend next year will disagree. Any equation that has the Cubs contending next year includes Z pitching like he has in the past. Or trading Z to a contender now, getting some prospects and then trading for King Felix this offseason. There are a variety of scenarios where Z gets traded that would still work for contending in 2012. To me, it depends on what the Cubs feel Z has left in the tank. If they feel he's not ever going to be the pitcher he was in the past again, then they should trade him while the value is still relatively high. If they feel that he can still have a second half like he did last year, then they should keep him and have one less gap in the offseason. That scenario seems pretty fantasy baseball-ish to me. The fact remains the Cubs need a pitcher like Z (or better) in order to contend next year. Now you're right, if they don't think Z himself can still be that pitcher, the go ahead and sell high. Just do so realizing you're creating another hole that needs to be filled in the offseason.

Yeah, but, like, who cares? He isn't helping the Cubs this year - no one is - and his $18 million next year could almost certainly be put to better use. Unless you believe he's going to reverse course next year (which is not inconceivable given how dominant he was in the second half last year), I just can't be too upset about losing Z's hypothetical production for 2012. NOBODY is saying that if someone wants to pick up the 18 mil that we shouldnt let them have him. The general consensus is that we shouldnt have to pay him more than 1/3 of his salary to pitch for someone else unless were getting some top prospects. If some team really wants to pick up the remainder of his contract, theres probabbly not a poster on this board who wouldnt happily drive him to the airport. Its similar to the Soriano situation. Sure, it would be better if we didnt have to pay him,but considering the production you get, if you do have to pay him anyway, it should be for us. I think you're wrong about that. For instance, anyone that believes that the Cubs can contend next year will disagree. Any equation that has the Cubs contending next year includes Z pitching like he has in the past.

Alou was clearly reaching over the railing to attempt to catch the ball. Bartman is reaching pretty much straight over his head. Any reasonable conclusion is that the ball would not have landed in the field of play. Thus interference should not have been called.