CubmanPi

The team that wins the World Series will be on its fourth champagne celebration in just over a month.

http://z.lee28.tripod.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/venturaryan.jpg

I don't think there's a such thing as a wrong choice there. Whichever you can pry would be huge. Your approach to the trade matters too, not just the names involved. Just making a trade proposal appear on his account may not be as successful as sending a msg pointing out you guys' complimenting strengths and weaknesses and seeing how open he is to a trade, and doing it without throwing any names around right away. Unless you know the guy personally, in which case, nevermind.

That's true, but Tarvaris Jackson's numbers took a spike when he had Sidney Rice back. Should starting Sidney Rice make Alex Smith an even more obvious choice?

:twisted: he looks nothing like you (but with more hair) which is really great. :) But which direction is that hair line moving?

Bye-week hell for me this week. Alex Smith Tarvaris Jackson Basically, my goal is to lose by less than 60. In the little poll where you get to vote for who you think will win, I already voted for the other guy. For entertainment purposes, here's a look at my players who have a bye this week, all in the same league: Ray Rice Tony Romo Brandon Marshall Daniel Thomas Joe Flacco Jabar Gaffney

If the Ravens could please use Flacco, Rice, and Williams to put together a modest drive that ends in a Cundiff field goal, just once more between now and the end of the game, I would really enjoy it. /I don't care about my fantasy team either

I really hate Ryan Theriot. Not a Phils fan by any stretch, but if they could hang up 9 or 10 runs this inning, I'd really enjoy it.

Finally watched the DVR last night. I've always felt bad for Bartman, but I had no idea how bad it was for him. I definitely got caught up in the immediate aftermath and blamed him for a short time after the game. I think Cabrera could have been doubled off, contrary to what I said earlier. It would have been close, but it's not a given he would have beaten the relay.

Ingram. I don't see Hunter being a Ben Tate-level replacement, and I think Ingram's matchup is better than Hillis's.

I've got Ray Rice starting. Other starting RB is Daniel Thomas, a no-go. Should I go: Michael Bush (NE) or acquire John Kuhn (Den) Ricky Williams (Jets, Rice handcuff)

I'm pretty sure someone brought up before that the biggest leap I'm taking with this photo angle approach is that I'm just operating on the assumption that these are from the exact same instant. With no fans in one angle, it makes it almost impossible to tell. My argument is only hinged on where Alou's glove is, not where the ball would have been caught. I simply can't agree with the assertion that Alou was clearly reaching into the stands. I never actually concluded the ball was on the line, just that there is an unprovable possibility that the very edge of Alou's glove is above the railing, and that the rest of his glove is clearly above the field of play. I used my conclusion of Alou's glove being in fair territory to assume 1) that Bartman was reaching over fair territory (can't be determined with fans removed from second angle), and b) that since they were both reaching for supposedly the same spot over fair territory (again, can't be determined), that's where the ball was going to hit. So let's look at the ball. It was dumb of me not to before, but I was too hung up on where Alou was reaching. In the documentary angle (no diagrams this time), vertical lines drawn down from both edges of the ball come down on either side of the yellow line. In the traditional angle, the same lines come down over the middle of the green and blue sections of railing. Using the same concept as in the paint drawing, the two lines of sight cross somewhere above the field of play. The ball was in fair territory. The margin of error between the times the photos was taken is not big enough to account for all of this distance, because the center of the ball in the original photo would have to appear to be left of the yellow line. In the documentary angle, you have a good idea of the vertical distance between the ball and Alou's glove. The trajectory of Castillo's popup makes it impossible that the ball's location from the traditional angle was ever viewed that far to the left, but still that close to the same horizontal level as Alou's glove. That would have meant that it was a screaming line drive, not a popup that hung in the air forever. Where would Alou's glove have been had he caught it? A batted ball moves much faster than Alou's glove could have ever been moving. For how close the ball was to his glove, the remaining movement of his glove would have been negligible at best.

Nice contribution, Kyle. Thank you. Nuts, I think I see what you're saying and I have an answer, but I'll have to read it again tomorrow. Thanks (non-sarcastic) for the counter.

Here's take two on the photo-combining effort. Everything I'm showing hinges on the fact that truly vertical lines will appear to be truly vertical regardless of from which angle you view it. In the pic with no fans in the seats (I'll refer to it as the documentary angle), Alou's glove, head, and his shoulder where it contacts the wall all appear to be roughly vertical. In the angle used in all the pics from page 1 of the thread (from now on I'll call it the traditional angle), it's clear that those three points don't align vertically, so you can only assert that they fall on the same plane, not on the same vertical line. I used where the division of the padding connects to the top of the wall to draw vertical lines to the railing. This introduces slight margin of error, as the railing is centered on top of the brick wall, as opposed to flush with the edge. That distance is probably about 2 inches. (Correcting this margin of error would slightly shift Alou's mitt and Bartman's hands farther away from the stands and toward the field of play.) I took half of the chunk of railing between the red lines, and I color-coded it into four more sections. These sections of color are on approximately the same pieces of railing in both pictures. Knowing that there is slight margin for error, this isn't perfect, but they provide reference points to draw conclusions the same way I concluded that Alou's head, glove, and shoulder are all on the same plane. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/cubbybear314/newangleversion2.jpg http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/cubbybear314/traditionalangleversion2.jpg The only reference point on Alou's glove clearly visible from both angles is the part I circled. From the documentary angle, it appears to be closer to home plate than the yellow line. From the traditional angle, it appears to be further from home plate than the back red line. All this means is that we can assert that this point of his glove is somewhere over the field of play. The picture below shows this, though it is nowhere close to scale. The big black spots are the undefined locations of where the cameras were, the green line is the railing, the dots on the railing represent the vertical lines drawn above, and where the lines intersect represents the previously-determined spot on Alou's glove. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/cubbybear314/overheadview.jpg What my fantastic MSPaint skills also show is, if a vertical line drawn over the traditional angle object X with spot Y on the railing, and a verticle line drawn over object X on the documentary angle aligns it with a spot on the railing closer to home plate than spot Y, then object X is over the field of play, with the black lines intersecting to the right of the railing. If object X when viewed from the documentary angle appears to be farther from the home plate than spot Y, then the intersection is to the left of the railing, and into the stands. Due to the angles, it's not possible to take any part of Alou's glove that's closer to the railing and make the same comparison. You can, however, make if-then assertions. In the documentary angle, the back edge of Alou's glove clearly lines up on the same plane as the blue-coded chunk of railing. I approximated the same line in the traditional angle. It's impossible to know for certain, but if that line in the traditional angle lines up with the exact same spot on Alou's glove, then that piece of his glove is directly above the front edge of the railing. To me, I think that exact spot on his glove used in the documentary angle lines up just barely closer to home plate when viewed from the traditional angle, which would put the very tip of his mitt above the top of the railing. (With the margin of error I described before, it would shift the color-coded pieces of railing slightly toward home plate and therefore the tip of Alou's glove slightly toward the field of play.) With the reference point of his glove resulting in so much variation, and this impossible-to-determine point being somewhere pretty close to right above the railing, it puts both Bartman's hands and the well of Alou's glove (likely where the ball was headed, since they're both reaching there) probably somewhere above the face of the padding to just in front of it. In order for Alou's glove to be "clearly reaching into the stands," this undetermined spot on his glove would have to appear to be, from the traditional angle, directly above some part of the green chunk of railing, in order to be able to plot it out on the MSPaint diagram with an intersection to the left of the railing. At most, you can claim a small part of Alou's glove was over the railing, with nearly all of it over the field of play. "Alou was clearly reaching into the stands" is false.

That seems like a somewhat arbitrary declaration on your part since none of the photos present an angle that actually shows whether that is true or not. Without a photo clearly showing that this is the case how can we come to this conclusion? I guess what I'm asking for is for you to effectively show your work since re-reading it it doesn't seem like it amounts to more than "well, this looks right" + visual aids. I'd appreciate it if you could break it down as such because I really do feel like I'm missing something here. Re-did it, working on photobucket/explanation. The most generous you could be is that the play at first would have been very close if it were turned perfectly. The ball was hit too slowly to make this assertion. Still, getting that one out changes that inning a lot.

There was a pretty detailed debate from page 1, and I revived it with the new angle from the documentary. (Blame whoever bumped the thread, not me.) I never argued fan interference should have been called. Fan interference is grounds for ejection and trespassing, so the call should only be made on blatant offenses, which this was not. All I'm doing is countering the above assertions with an argument that wasn't available at the time. Combining the two angles shows that claiming he was clearly over the railing is inaccurate, and that the original angle creates a misleading perception of the relative positions of his glove and the railing.

I knew I was baiting you into saying something.

No they do not. That conclusion is, and forever will be, pure speculation. Heck I have yet to hear anyone even ask, let alone answer, the question of where the stands end and the field of play starts. At the railing? At the edge of the concrete wall? At the outermost edge of the padding? I'm pretty convinced the ball, glove, and hands were above one or more of those potential, imaginary boundary lines. To borrow a phrase from football, there is not conclusive video evidence to overturn the call on the field. The signs all over the field telling you not to reach over the railing and into the field of play make the division pretty clear. And I even conceded that there's no conclusive video evidence. However, simultaneous photographic evidence from two angles, separated by 90 degrees, makes it pretty clear that, unless the grass in foul territory fits into the grey area you're describing, the ball was over the field of play. You're good now, Nuts. Davearm will pick up your stance from here.

Right. It marked where he was along the wall. In the image where it appears as if he's reaching into the stands, he would have to be reaching over the railing where the red line farthest from home plate crosses the railing. The new angle from the documentary, where I drew the red line across the railing in the exact same position, shows that he clearly wasn't reaching over that portion of the railing. The fat red line I drew on the railing itself is much closer to the part of the railing closest to Alou's glove. He clearly was not reaching across that chunk of railing into the stands. I don't know how much more clear I can make this.

Torrey Smith had zero catches on 1 target through the first two weeks. Just sayin.

So you're trolling. Thanks.

You're either trolling or the hardest-headed person in existence. And I'm really not sure which. http://www.nature.com/scientificamerican/journal/v20/n1/images/scientificamericanmind0510-56sp-I8.jpg Look at the picture on the left. Is it a closed, intact triangle? If you think so, look at the picture on the right. It's the same structure, but viewed from a different angle. Knowing that, look back at the picture on the left. Do you still think it's a closed, intact triangle?

Right. And combining the angles shows that Bartman's hands and Alou's glove make contact over the field of play. The only two conclusions that can then be drawn are: 1) The ball was also over the field of play. 2) The ball was over the railing and in foul territory, but Alou and Bartman were both reaching for the exact same wrong spot over the field of play, and the ball bounced off Bartman's elbows.

It's not about what should or shouldn't have happened. No replay would have been conclusive enough on the spot to ever overturn it. What should have happened is that Alou should have STFU and GBTW. I don't blame the guy at all, but to say Bartman wasn't reaching over the field of play when he touched the ball is pretty clearly false. And Derwood, my post was nowhere near the realm of Loose Change. Had I claimed that Bartman was a secret agent working for some underground secretive corporate network, who sought to ultimately ruin the Cubs' franchise so the landmark status could be removed, so they could purchase the land, so they could drill to the oil/gold wealth located 12 miles directly beneath Wrigley that only they know about, and their elaborate plot even went so far as to alter the physics of the baseball to allow it to be remotely steered to Bartman's position in the stands, using technology only high-ranking members of the government were authorized to implement, then it would be loose change. I believe a more appropriate unsupported criticism would be: http://knowyourmeme.com/i/24183/original/500pxShopped.jpg

I went back to page 1 and saw there was a different picture used for the point of contact. I extended the lines all the way up to show that, base on where bartman was standing, his full arm extension, and where he was in relation to the railing, there's no way Bartman makes contact with the ball on his side of the railing. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v483/cubbybear314/comparison3.jpg