MUScoop
MUScoop => The Superbar => Topic started by: Sheriff on July 31, 2017, 04:06:58 PM
-
Frank Kaminsky must be thrilled about this.
-
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
-
Eh, I have a Cub fan on Facebook saying she's "legit crying" about it. Fandom isn't rational.
-
That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
It's a really nice gesture. The stuff this dude had to go through was awful and undeserved.
That being said, I hope to never hear his name again.
-
Class move by the organization. Liked his response.
-
Eh, I have a Cub fan on Facebook saying she's "legit crying" about it. Cub Fandom isn't rational.
FIFY
-
Class move by the organization. Liked his response.
+1
The way cub fans treated this guy is an embarrassment to them.
Glad the organization is trying to make this right.
-
+1
The way cub fans treated this guy is an embarrassment to them.
Glad the organization is trying to make this right.
I would add the way the players and manager at the time treated him.
-
I would add the way the players and manager at the time treated him.
Agree completely. What the Cubs should have said is that some rando fan had NOTHING to do with their collapse in that fateful game. They owed him. Glad current management recognized.
-
+1
The way cub fans treated this guy is an embarrassment to them.
Glad the organization is trying to make this right.
I would add the way the players and manager at the time treated him.
It was a portion of the fan base - many didn't blame him for doing something the majority of most people in that situation would have done.
The media made it much, much worse than it needed to be or should have been. And that carried on through last season.
Personally,
-
I just re-watched the fateful 8th inning. Correctly remembered that while the Bartman incident was significant, it was more about how the Cubs failed to remain mentally tough following the initial double. Pitching, defense and Dusty all terribly lacking.
-
The media made it much, much worse than it needed to be or should have been. And that carried on through last season.
Damn media. TV showed the play live and the reaction to, sportswriters reported about what happened, columnists opined about it, etc. I mean, just because it was one of the biggest events in Cubs history ... the damn media should have ignored it. Fake news! Sad!
-
Damn media. TV showed the play live and the reaction to, sportswriters reported about what happened, columnists opined about it, etc. I mean, just because it was one of the biggest events in Cubs history ... the damn media should have ignored it. Fake news! Sad!
Going to assume that was sarcasm. No one said it should have been ignored.
There's a difference between reporting on what happened and sharing his name immediately. showing up at his parent's house, etc.
-
I just re-watched the fateful 8th inning. Correctly remembered that while the Bartman incident was significant, it was more about how the Cubs failed to remain mentally tough following the initial double. Pitching, defense and Dusty all terribly lacking.
Gonzalez booting the easy double-play ball was the key play. Turn that and you're out of the inning.
-
Good on the organization, and I don't blame Bartman.
That said, my frustration at the time was that earlier in the series, a fan interfered with a pop foul that should've been caught by Damian Miller. It was a routine play, Miller was similarly pissed, but it amounted to nothing.
All I could think at the time, rational or not, was how anyone could forget the Damian Miller play just a few days later.
Apparently, though, everyone forgot it except me. I've never heard another word about that pop foul, but in Cub fandom Steve Bartman will forever be a household name.
-
They should have made Moises Alou deliver it to him.
-
The meltdown actually began before the pop foul. The Cubs pitcher was already wild. It's interesting in retrospect to see how much discipline was lost in just a few minutes most evident in the SS error. And Dusty did absolutely nothing about it. Watching it now, it was easy to see the Walmart tent collapse in that stiff 10 mph breeze. The Cubs simply weren't ready to win. Contrast that with their play last year. Night and day.
-
Good on the organization, and I don't blame Bartman.
That said, my frustration at the time was that earlier in the series, a fan interfered with a pop foul that should've been caught by Damian Miller. It was a routine play, Miller was similarly pissed, but it amounted to nothing.
All I could think at the time, rational or not, was how anyone could forget the Damian Miller play just a few days later.
Apparently, though, everyone forgot it except me. I've never heard another word about that pop foul, but in Cub fandom Steve Bartman will forever be a household name.
That play wasn't in the 8th inning of a potential pennant-clinching game in which the Cubs had a 3-run lead.
-
That play wasn't in the 8th inning of a potential pennant-clinching game in which the Cubs had a 3-run lead.
No, but it was a couple games earlier in the same series. Had parallels, and was why I was thinking "why the hell do you reach for that ball" even before the media blew the whole thing up.
-
I would add the way the players and manager at the time treated him.
Easier to blame someone else than themselves. Typical Cubbies.
-
Easier to blame someone else than themselves. Typical Cubbies.
::)
-
::)
Well done VBMG. My post was obvious snark and you gave it the reply it deserved.
-
Going to assume that was sarcasm. No one said it should have been ignored.
There's a difference between reporting on what happened and sharing his name immediately. showing up at his parent's house, etc.
A few TV cameras did what TV types always do. That doesn't mean "the media" went overboard covering a major, major story. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Also, I admit that I'm probably a little touchy on this subject given You Know Who's constant attempts to distract from his own failingskis by always screaming, "Fake News!" All I'll say is thank goodness for the Times and Post these days.
-
I wonder if Steve ever got to meet Michael Jackson.
-
Damn media. TV showed the play live and the reaction to, sportswriters reported about what happened, columnists opined about it, etc. I mean, just because it was one of the biggest events in Cubs history ... the damn media should have ignored it. Fake news! Sad!
Nice try.
Journalists stopped reporting the facts long ago. They feel the need to spin a narrative in every story. Reporting the story doesn't win any Pulitzers. Bartman was A story. He was not the story, except the media made it so. The Cubs meltdown after that play should have been the story. His name should be a footnote.
-
Nice try.
Journalists stopped reporting the facts long ago. They feel the need to spin a narrative in every story. Reporting the story doesn't win any Pulitzers. Bartman was A story. He was not the story, except the media made it so. The Cubs meltdown after that play should have been the story. His name should be a footnote.
You should offer that up to Dusty Baker and the Cubs players. After the fans started threatening his life, throwing every item they could find at him, etc. while that inning continued on and the outcome still well up in the air (see: making him, not the Cubs play, the story), Dusty and team followed suit, bringing all the attention to him and that play after the game (see: making him, not the Cubs play, the story). If Cubs fans don't (predictably) treat him the way they do after that play and the players and manager don't react like they did, even if the entire rest of the game goes identically, the media doesn't give him one side note. But the fans and team made him the story, so the media wrote the story.
-
Nice try.
Journalists stopped reporting the facts long ago. They feel the need to spin a narrative in every story. Reporting the story doesn't win any Pulitzers. Bartman was A story. He was not the story, except the media made it so. The Cubs meltdown after that play should have been the story. His name should be a footnote.
First, I agree with wades on Bartman. The Cubs and their fans MADE him the story. Hell, the Cubs are STILL making him the story! Did anybody from the media go to Ricketts last month and say, "Hey, how about giving Bartman a ring?" I don't think so. So easy and lazy to blame the media, though.
Second, re your obvious disdain for the media ... wow. Without a free and active press, this country is TOAST. Those who might not think so need only look at the events of the last 48 hours.
-
First, I agree with wades on Bartman. The Cubs and their fans MADE him the story. Hell, the Cubs are STILL making him the story! Did anybody from the media go to Ricketts last month and say, "Hey, how about giving Bartman a ring?" I don't think so. So easy and lazy to blame the media, though.
Second, re your obvious disdain for the media ... wow. Without a free and active press, this country is TOAST. Those who might not think so need only look at the events of the last 48 hours.
Actually Bartman "redemption" stories were floated around during the playoffs last year.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-steve-bartman-cubs-world-series-20161023-column.html
-
Second, re your obvious disdain for the media ... wow. Without a free and active press, this country is TOAST. Those who might not think so need only look at the events of the last 48 hours.
You want to thank the free and active press for saving our country because they are feverishly trying to destroy the very thing that they fought feverishly to create. Ironic.
-
Disappointing, Lennie.
-
First, I agree with wades on Bartman. The Cubs and their fans MADE him the story. Hell, the Cubs are STILL making him the story! Did anybody from the media go to Ricketts last month and say, "Hey, how about giving Bartman a ring?" I don't think so. So easy and lazy to blame the media, though.
Second, re your obvious disdain for the media ... wow. Without a free and active press, this country is TOAST. Those who might not think so need only look at the events of the last 48 hours.
You are getting Chicos-esque with your dripping of political commentary in many of your posts.
-
MU82, they aren't wrong about you being the one who is injecting politics into the most threads.
-
Disappointing, Lennie.
The guy is, was and has always been a blowhard. But the press gave him more free publicity (plenty of it positive) than the other 18 GOP candidates combined because it sold newspapers. I didn't see anything remotely heroic in that.
-
First, I agree with wades on Bartman. The Cubs and their fans MADE him the story. Hell, the Cubs are STILL making him the story! Did anybody from the media go to Ricketts last month and say, "Hey, how about giving Bartman a ring?" I don't think so. So easy and lazy to blame the media, though.
Second, re your obvious disdain for the media ... wow. Without a free and active press, this country is TOAST. Those who might not think so need only look at the events of the last 48 hours.
I thought the press was to be free, active and unbiased, but we all know that's not true
-
The biases in modern media reminds me of newspapers in the early days of the republic. They would routinely print rumours or simply make things up to support their biases. Like many websites today. Truly impartial journalism was a worthy goal that was rarely achieved. And when it was it was attacked by partisans as biased because it didn't support THEIR biases.
-
1. I shouldn't have injected politics in this.
2. And there is no sense of having a discussion about the media if almost everybody here believes the mainstream media, which routinely roots out corruption by the very people we hire to serve us, actually is bad for this country.
Checking out.
-
1. I shouldn't have injected politics in this.
2. And there is no sense of having a discussion about the media if almost everybody here believes the mainstream media, which routinely roots out corruption by the very people we hire to serve us, actually is bad for this country.
Checking out.
Says he shouldn't bring political views into thread. Does so right after?
-
2. And there is no sense of having a discussion about the media if almost everybody here believes the mainstream media, which routinely roots out corruption by the very people we hire to serve us, actually is bad for this country.
Checking out.
There's a whole lot of real estate between "heroic" and "bad". Most journalist live with most of their fellow citizens in that vast expanse.
-
Back on topic.
The over-the-top and irrational response by many Cub fans to Bartman is indefensible. Is giving him a 2016 World Series ring an appropriate gesture by current Cubs management?
- Replay shows Bartman interfered with Moises Alou's attempt to catch the foul fly ball.
- That interference likely gave the Marlins another out in addition to the five badly needed by the Cubs to win the game and their first pennant in 58 years. Everybody, including Bartman, is aware of the narrative (goat, 1969, 1984, etc).
- Regardless of whether or not Alou makes the catch, the play changes the momentum of the game at probably the most critical point in the game time in 58 years for the franchise. If you don't believe in momentum in baseball, consider what happened following the rain delay in game 7 last year.
- I don't buy the narrative that "any fan would have done the same thing as Bartman." If you are a REAL fan, and understand the situation and consequences, why wouldn't you make an effort to get the hell out of the way and give your player an opportunity to make that catch? Ozzie Guillen (with the Marlins in 2003) said that if anyone should give Bartman a ring, it should be the Marlins.
- Finally, Bartman contributed nothing to the success of the 2016 Cubs other than giving them the satisfaction of "breaking the curse" that included Bartman in the narrative.
Considering all of the above, I don't think awarding him with a 2016 World Series ring makes sense.
-
Back on topic.
The over-the-top and irrational response by many Cub fans to Bartman is indefensible. Is giving him a 2016 World Series ring an appropriate gesture by current Cubs management?
- Replay shows Bartman interfered with Moises Alou's attempt to catch the foul fly ball.
- That interference likely gave the Marlins another out in addition to the five badly needed by the Cubs to win the game and their first pennant in 58 years. Everybody, including Bartman, is aware of the narrative (goat, 1969, 1984, etc).
- Regardless of whether or not Alou makes the catch, the play changes the momentum of the game at probably the most critical point in the game time in 58 years for the franchise. If you don't believe in momentum in baseball, consider what happened following the rain delay in game 7 last year.
- I don't buy the narrative that "any fan would have done the same thing as Bartman." If you are a REAL fan, and understand the situation and consequences, why wouldn't you make an effort to get the hell out of the way and give your player an opportunity to make that catch? Ozzie Guillen (with the Marlins in 2003) said that if anyone should give Bartman a ring, it should be the Marlins.
- Finally, Bartman contributed nothing to the success of the 2016 Cubs other than giving them the satisfaction of "breaking the curse" that included Bartman in the narrative.
Considering all of the above, I don't think awarding him with a 2016 World Series ring makes sense.
You are excluding the over-the-top reaction that Bartman was subject to afterward. The Cubs feel they played a role in that, therefore this is a symbolic way to apologize for that. They think it makes sense - good enough for me.
-
Honestly, I just hopes this closes the chapter on Bartman. It was an overblown story at the time, created an unfair narrative that persisted for years, and anyone that still remembers it also remembers the Cubs winning the World Series last year, so it's water under the bridge. This should be the last time we need to hear Bartman's name, which would be better for Cub fandom, the Cubs organization, and the Bartman family.
-
You are excluding the over-the-top reaction that Bartman was subject to afterward. The Cubs feel they played a role in that, therefore this is a symbolic way to apologize for that. They think it makes sense - good enough for me.
Or look at it this way. Suppose Bartman hadn't interfered and the Cubs went on to win the World Series. The team would have become more valuable as a result; and at that price, the Ricketts may have decided that purchasing it would not be a sound business decision. Therefore, the Ricketts would not have been there to make the changes that turned the Cubs into a team that was good enough to win the World Series last year.
Ipso Facto, Steve Bartman deserves a ring because he is the reason they won the 2016 World Series.
-
Back on topic.
The over-the-top and irrational response by many Cub fans to Bartman is indefensible. Is giving him a 2016 World Series ring an appropriate gesture by current Cubs management?
- Replay shows Bartman interfered with Moises Alou's attempt to catch the foul fly ball.
- That interference likely gave the Marlins another out in addition to the five badly needed by the Cubs to win the game and their first pennant in 58 years. Everybody, including Bartman, is aware of the narrative (goat, 1969, 1984, etc).
- Regardless of whether or not Alou makes the catch, the play changes the momentum of the game at probably the most critical point in the game time in 58 years for the franchise. If you don't believe in momentum in baseball, consider what happened following the rain delay in game 7 last year.
- I don't buy the narrative that "any fan would have done the same thing as Bartman." If you are a REAL fan, and understand the situation and consequences, why wouldn't you make an effort to get the hell out of the way and give your player an opportunity to make that catch? Ozzie Guillen (with the Marlins in 2003) said that if anyone should give Bartman a ring, it should be the Marlins.
- Finally, Bartman contributed nothing to the success of the 2016 Cubs other than giving them the satisfaction of "breaking the curse" that included Bartman in the narrative.
Considering all of the above, I don't think awarding him with a 2016 World Series ring makes sense.
You have a solid argument. Although, the bolded part is 100% wrong. If a baseball is coming your way in the stands, you try to catch it. Unless the fan played baseball at a high level, judging where a liner off the bat of an MLB player is going to land is darn near impossible for a fan. Did you want him and everyone else in the vicinity to remained seated with their hands at their sides? Should they all scatter? What's your solution?
99% of Cubs fans moved on long ago and understand that he did nothing wrong. Unfortunately, the media keeps bringing the story back up. The Cubs gave Bartman a ring as a PR move. The guy just wants to be left alone. Hopefully this helps do the trick.
-
Honestly, I just hopes this closes the chapter on Bartman. It was an overblown story at the time, created an unfair narrative that persisted for years, and anyone that still remembers it also remembers the Cubs winning the World Series last year, so it's water under the bridge. This should be the last time we need to hear Bartman's name, which would be better for Cub fandom, the Cubs organization, and the Bartman family.
I wholeheartedly agree. My first reaction after the final out in game 7 last year was - no more curse, no more goat, no more Bartman. And eight months later, more Bartman.
-
You have a solid argument. Although, the bolded part is 100% wrong. If a baseball is coming your way in the stands, you try to catch it. Unless the fan played baseball at a high level, judging where a liner off the bat of an MLB player is going to land is darn near impossible for a fan. Did you want him and everyone else in the vicinity to remained seated with their hands at their sides? Should they all scatter? What's your solution?
99% of Cubs fans moved on long ago and understand that he did nothing wrong. Unfortunately, the media keeps bringing the story back up. The Cubs gave Bartman a ring as a PR move. The guy just wants to be left alone. Hopefully this helps do the trick.
It was a pop fly. How about just leaning back or moving out of the way? I've seen a lot of baseball. It happens all the time.
-
It was a pop fly. How about just leaning back or moving out of the way? I've seen a lot of baseball. It happens all the time.
How often do you see it deep down the line where the fans can't see the fielder coming at them and the fielder has to jump up into the stands to make a play?
-
Was it a Cubs sponsored event where they blew up the ball?
-
Was it a Cubs sponsored event where they blew up the ball?
No. Someone bought it and blew it up as a stunt.
-
How often do you see it deep down the line where the fans can't see the fielder coming at them and the fielder has to jump up into the stands to make a play?
That's not what happened. Alou did not "jump into the stands." Bartman reached over the wall and the ball hit his hand above Alou's glove.
-
That's not what happened. Alou did not "jump into the stands." Bartman reached over the wall and the ball hit his hand above Alou's glove.
Your memory is faulty. The ball was already in the stands when Bartman reached for it, and anyways he wasn't even the only fan to reach for he ball.
-
Watch the video. Others did react but the ball hit Bartman's left hand as he reached for it over the wall.
-
Oh boy...a Bartman truther...
-
Your memory is faulty. The ball was already in the stands when Bartman reached for it, and anyways he wasn't even the only fan to reach for he ball.
Chitown is correct. The ball was essentially directly above the rail, quite high up a significant brick wall in what would have been a very difficult catch for Alou. There was a chap a couple of seats closer to home plate along that same rail that literally lunged over the seats toward Bartman but never got his hands on the actual ball. The ball was not over the field of play but might have been catchable if everyone would have had the presence of mind to give Alou a clear shot. Way more than one lone individual had other ideas as many reached up for the ball.
Here's what's important to note. Fan interference was not signaled by the umpire. I suspect, but am not certain, that modern video replay would uphold that call. One other note. Alou's continuing rant as he returned to toward his position was part of the mental 'tent folding' that went on throughout the inning. Instead of pounding his fist in his glove and refocusing, he cried like a 10 year old girl. The Cubs were beyond mentally weak that day. And they lost the pennant because of it.
-
Chitown is correct. The ball was essentially directly above the rail, quite high up a significant brick wall in what would have been a very difficult catch for Alou. There was a chap a couple of seats closer to home plate along that same rail that literally lunged over the seats toward Bartman but never got his hands on the actual ball. The ball was not over the field of play but might have been catchable if everyone would have had the presence of mind to give Alou a clear shot. Way more than one lone individual had other ideas as many reached up for the ball.
Agreed
-
Watch the video. Others did react but the ball hit Bartman's left hand as he reached for it over the wall.
If he had reached over the wall, it would have been fan interference and the second out of the inning.
In my previous post, I should have said "jumped up and reached into the stands" as opposed to "jumped into the stands."
-
Chitown is correct. The ball was essentially directly above the rail, quite high up a significant brick wall in what would have been a very difficult catch for Alou. There was a chap a couple of seats closer to home plate along that same rail that literally lunged over the seats toward Bartman but never got his hands on the actual ball. The ball was not over the field of play but might have been catchable if everyone would have had the presence of mind to give Alou a clear shot. Way more than one lone individual had other ideas as many reached up for the ball.
Here's what's important to note. Fan interference was not signaled by the umpire. I suspect, but am not certain, that modern video replay would uphold that call. One other note. Alou's continuing rant as he returned to toward his position was part of the mental 'tent folding' that went on throughout the inning. Instead of pounding his fist in his glove and refocusing, he cried like a 10 year old girl. The Cubs were beyond mentally weak that day. And they lost the pennant because of it.
I agree with all of this.
If Alex Gonzalez booted that double-play grounder because he was still thinking about Bartman, he is the most mentally weak player in baseball history and his team deserved to lose.
If Gonzalez booted it just because he screwed up ... well, that's baseball ... and the Cubs still deserved to lose.
-
I agree with all of this.
If Alex Gonzalez booted that double-play grounder because he was still thinking about Bartman, he is the most mentally weak player in baseball history and his team deserved to lose.
If Gonzalez booted it just because he screwed up ... well, that's baseball ... and the Cubs still deserved to lose.
All true, but it wasn't just Gonzalez. That pitcher was all over the place including to the backstop. He had to grove stuff just to get strikes with predictable results.
-
All true, but it wasn't just Gonzalez. That pitcher was all over the place including to the backstop. He had to grove stuff just to get strikes with predictable results.
The pitch to Castillo that resulted in the "Bartman play" was Prior's 113th pitch of the game. He then walked Castillo on a wild pitch and was left out there to face 3 more batters...all righties, by the way, with Farnsworth (a righty) ready in the pen. Dusty and Rothschild did the team no favors.
-
The pitch to Castillo that resulted in the "Bartman play" was Prior's 113th pitch of the game. He then walked Castillo on a wild pitch and was left out there to face 3 more batters...all righties, by the way, with Farnsworth (a righty) ready in the pen. Dusty and Rothschild did the team no favors.
Had all the crud not happened, there is no way I would have taken Prior out of that game. He was cruising, regardless of pitch count, and I wouldn't have had much faith in Borowski, Farnsworth, Remlinger, etc. With the first pennant since 1945 on the line, I would have stayed with the guy who arguably was the best pitcher in baseball from July on.
But the crud DID happen, and this is a valid point, 'Stache.
-
If no one reaches for the ball, in the stands or over the field of play, and Alou makes the catch, how does the game turn out? We'll never know.
-
The pitch to Castillo that resulted in the "Bartman play" was Prior's 113th pitch of the game. He then walked Castillo on a wild pitch and was left out there to face 3 more batters...all righties, by the way, with Farnsworth (a righty) ready in the pen. Dusty and Rothschild did the team no favors.
Thanks for the detail. Dusty was too slow to recognize what was happening. 113 pitches and he lets Prior die out there. That should have been it after the wild pitch if only to settle the team. MAYBE one more batter.
Look, this is all very easy in retrospect. I've lived and died with the Packers my entire life. And as it was happening to us against Seattle, our guys were powerless to stop it. Think how Atlanta feels right now or go back to Greg Norman in the Masters about 20 years ago when it took 4 hours for his wheels to fall off. Crap happens.
-
Here's the video. You can see clearly that Bartman is one of three people that reaches for the ball with a viable chance to get it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq8G81oOHhY
Here's a freeze frame. Could Alou have got to it? Maybe. Bartman's arm did appear to be right above his glove. But regardless, it would've been a tough catch and most likely if Steve's arms aren't there, someone else would've interfered with it.
(https://richsportstalk.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/bartman_two_wide-56403dfc64de86946037e5d35c47c0c91826c70a.jpg)
All water under the bridge now. Might he have caught it? Sure. Might it have been too far and too tough an angle? Sure. Who knows? Who cares?
(http://37.media.tumblr.com/18901f25139347103d36e32deafdf22e/tumblr_n1zi5rWB2V1r7b6cio1_500.gif)
-
Still prefer the Great Big Sea version of 'Let it Go'. Doesn't have the cool GIF, however.
-
Any fan would do what Bartman did. Heck, even if I had time to sit and think, "Hmm, this ball is coming close to me. And my favorite team's left fielder is coming close to me. Maybe the left fielder coming close to me has a chance to catch the ball coming close to me. Let me not make a move to catch the ball coming close to me so the left fielder that is coming close to me can catch the ball coming close to me," 99.999% of fans (myself included) would try to catch the ball if for no other reason than to not be hit by a baseball falling from the sky. Problem for him is he did it in Chicago.
And this thread is one of the many reasons it was so stupid to give the guy a WS ring. As if his life wasn't ruined enough, he could've finally drifted off quietly into the sunset now that the Cubs have gotten their elusive WS title, but instead we're making Steve Bartman a national name once again. The story is never going to go away. Just like Bill Buckner's name is still brought up constantly and the replay constantly shown, Steve Bartman is a name that will be thrown around forever, championship ring for playing absolutely no roll in the Chicago Cubs winning a 2016 World Series title or not.
-
Any fan would do what Bartman did.
Would they? No fan would be cognizant that there team is 5 outs away from the WS and realize that any chance a fielder has to record an out is precious.
It doesn't help that the stereotypical Cub fan knows nothing about baseball and probably isn't even watching the game, much less aware of score or situation...and whadda know, Bartman is wearing headphones, which makes him look like a stereotypical unaware Cubs fan, and tries to catch a foul ball when his team is 5 outs away from their first World Series in 50 plus years.
Yes, Bartman got far more grief than he deserved. But watching the play live, I remember thinking "That'll come back to haunt them" and sure enough the curse lived on. I'm still convinced the play lead to the Cubs losing their focus. Had Alou simply failed to catch a very difficult foul ball, much ado about nothing. Maybe then Gonzalez turns the double play, the Cubs win the game, and the Yankees beat the Cubs in the WS anyways. :P
-
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTHpn_Hgs_SijZbINkThpcc7Zt_eCTAZFSWLT2AOkLiX_m72pL1Ow)
(http://i.imgur.com/LPvQnrJ.jpg)
-
It doesn't help that the stereotypical Cub fan knows nothing about baseball and probably isn't even watching the game, much less aware of score or situation...and whadda know, Bartman is wearing headphones, which makes him look like a stereotypical unaware Cubs fan...
I have no dog in this fight, and really don't care too much about Bartman one way or another. But very often, my general impression of people wearing headphones at a baseball game is that they are listening to the radio broadcast and tend to be the more knowledgeable and aware fans in the crowd -- the baseball junkies. This impression has lessened since then, with the proliferation of phones with headphone jacks, but I honestly always assumed Bartman was listening to the game. I have no idea if that's correct, though.
I think at the time, most fans would have done what he did, and I don't think that it "outed" him as less aware or less knowledgeable.
-
Bartman will be on a upcoming episode of Pawn Stars trying to sell his WS ring.
-
I have no dog in this fight, and really don't care too much about Bartman one way or another. But very often, my general impression of people wearing headphones at a baseball game is that they are listening to the radio broadcast and tend to be the more knowledgeable and aware fans in the crowd -- the baseball junkies. This impression has lessened since then, with the proliferation of phones with headphone jacks, but I honestly always assumed Bartman was listening to the game. I have no idea if that's correct, though.
I think at the time, most fans would have done what he did, and I don't think that it "outed" him as less aware or less knowledgeable.
You're 100% correct. Bartman was listening to the game. It's well known that he's a lifelong, die hard Cubs fan. If he wasn't, he likely would have cashed in on his infamy. Instead, he's turned down hundreds of thousands of dollars and done all he can do to stay out of the spotlight but the media, and now the Cubs' execs, keeping shining it back on him.
-
A few TV cameras did what TV types always do. That doesn't mean "the media" went overboard covering a major, major story. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Also, I admit that I'm probably a little touchy on this subject given You Know Who's constant attempts to distract from his own failingskis by always screaming, "Fake News!" All I'll say is thank goodness for the Times and Post these days.
I'm definitely not trying to say it shouldn't have been covered at all - it was obviously a huge story. But the outlets that released his name and went to his or his parents' residences should be ashamed of themselves. I personally got sick of hearing about it in 07, 08, 15, and 16 when the Cubs made the playoffs.
I definitely was not trying to go the "fake news" route with my opinion.
I do think the extent of the coverage over the next 13 years was absurd.
Additionally, there is a ridiculous take in the Chicago Tribune by David Haugh that basically says closure cannot be attained until Steve Bartman is seen in public answering questions about the incident. This is one of the most ridiculous takes I've ever read
http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/columnists/ct-steve-bartman-closure-a-myth-haugh-20170801-column.html
-
It doesn't help that the stereotypical Cub fan knows nothing about baseball and probably isn't even watching the game, much less aware of score or situation...and whadda know, Bartman is wearing headphones, which makes him look like a stereotypical unaware Cubs fan, and tries to catch a foul ball when his team is 5 outs away from their first World Series in 50 plus years.
As others have mentioned, Bartman was listening to the game on the radio.
The Cubs fan stereotype always amuses me. You definitely have the fans that are there for the atmosphere but on the whole it is a knowledgeable fan base.
-
As others have mentioned, Bartman was listening to the game on the radio.
The Cubs fan stereotype always amuses me. You definitely have the fans that are there for the atmosphere but on the whole it is a knowledgeable fan base.
I know Bartman was listening to the game. I know that it is considered sports geek cool to listen to a baseball game while you are attending it. But anytime I see someone wearing headphones at a sporting event, my snap judgement is "you're isolated, your in your own little world, you're not paying attention to the action on the field." Even if you are listening to the game, I feel that wearing the headphones isolates you.
And yes, I know Cub fans are just like any other fan base with a cross-section of knowledgeable fans, bandwagon fans, and in between. One of my best friends from college is a very knowledgeable Cubs fan. The stereotype comes from the Cubs being called lovable losers for years, Wrigleyville being considered hip, and people dressing up to go to a baseball game like it's a nightclub. Why can't they be more like us Packer fans, wearing their Mark Chmura jersey to church.
-
A few TV cameras did what TV types always do. That doesn't mean "the media" went overboard covering a major, major story. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Also, I admit that I'm probably a little touchy on this subject given You Know Who's constant attempts to distract from his own failingskis by always screaming, "Fake News!" All I'll say is thank goodness for the Times and Post these days.
Upon receiving his ring, Bartman himself reprimanded the media.
“My hope is that we all can learn from my experience to view sports as entertainment and prevent harsh scapegoating, and to challenge the media and opportunistic profiteers to conduct business ethically by respecting personal privacy rights and not exploit any individual to advance their own self-interest or economic gain.”
Source - New York Times https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/sports/baseball/steve-bartman-chicago-cubs-fan.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/01/sports/baseball/steve-bartman-chicago-cubs-fan.html)
-
I know Bartman was listening to the game. I know that it is considered sports geek cool to listen to a baseball game while you are attending it. But anytime I see someone wearing headphones at a sporting event, my snap judgement is "your isolated, your in your own little world, your not paying attention to the action on the field." Even if you are listening to the game, I feel that wearing the headphones isolates you.
How does listening to the game that you're watching result in not paying attention to the game you're watching?
Also, when you're trying to act smarter than everyone, at least use proper grammar.
(https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/glee/images/e/e7/Y_o_u_r_means_your_friends.gif/revision/latest?cb=20150315033616)
-
I know Bartman was listening to the game...But anytime I see someone wearing headphones at a sporting event, my snap judgement is "your isolated...
I'm with you...
...your in your own little world...
...still with you...
...your not paying attention to the action on the field."
...aaaaaaand, you lost me.
-
I know Bartman was listening to the game. I know that it is considered sports geek cool to listen to a baseball game while you are attending it. But anytime I see someone wearing headphones at a sporting event, my snap judgement is "your isolated, your in your own little world, your not paying attention to the action on the field." Even if you are listening to the game, I feel that wearing the headphones isolates you.
And yes, I know Cub fans are just like any other fan base with a cross-section of knowledgeable fans, bandwagon fans, and in between. One of my best friends from college is a very knowledgeable Cubs fan. The stereotype comes from the Cubs being called lovable losers for years, Wrigleyville being considered hip, and people dressing up to go to a baseball game like it's a nightclub. Why can't they be more like us Packer fans, wearing their Mark Chmura jersey to church.
Got it - I misunderstood.
I don't think wearing headphones isolates you from what is going on in the game itself but maybe from your surroundings, although it's not something I've ever considered personally.
-
Would they? No fan would be cognizant that there team is 5 outs away from the WS and realize that any chance a fielder has to record an out is precious.
At the time, probably not; however, just a few years later, I don't remember who was playing but I distinctly remember an October pop foul barely making it's way into the seats while the fans in the immediate vicinity were basically leaning as far backwards as possible, presumably in an effort to make the ball at catchable as they could. This was a few years after Bartman, but very well seemed to be influenced by the incident (at least that's what the announcers surmised).
Today... who knows. Depending on the stadium and the situation, I would suspect that many sitting along the rails in a meaningful game have at least made a mental note before the game about what to do if a foul ball comes their way... whether they act accordingly is a different story.
-
At the time, probably not; however, just a few years later, I don't remember who was playing but I distinctly remember an October pop foul barely making it's way into the seats while the fans in the immediate vicinity were basically leaning as far backwards as possible, presumably in an effort to make the ball at catchable as they could. This was a few years after Bartman, but very well seemed to be influenced by the incident (at least that's what the announcers surmised).
Even in the still frame above, there are what I count to be 4 fans that could go for the ball but are pulling back with their arms deliberately away from the action.
I don't blame Bartman. There was a lot more going on than just his actions. But saying "anyone would do what he did" is just silly because while 2-3 others did what he did in that exact instance, 4 others did the opposite, and I've seen plenty of fans draw back away from the ball in an effort to make for an easier play.
-
...aaaaaaand, you lost me.
Let me clarify: You are paying attention to the field but may lack the situational awareness to realize the left fielder has a play on the ball when your team is 5 outs away from the World Series. Sorry I wasn't clearer. Time to look for a new editor for my Scoop posts.
-
How does listening to the game that you're watching result in not paying attention to the game you're watching?
It's a distraction that might make you less aware of the situation. Not necessarily, but it's reasonable to consider Bartman was distracted. Whether he was or not I do not know, since...newsflash...I'm not Bartman. Nor am I telepathic.
Also, when you're trying to act smarter than everyone, at least use proper grammar.
(https://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/glee/images/e/e7/Y_o_u_r_means_your_friends.gif/revision/latest?cb=20150315033616)
Trying to act smarter than everybody else? What am I, a Cubs fan? Just sharing my opinion. And thanks for the grammar correction. Clearly I didn't proofread before I hit post.