30 for 30

This silly shitstorm is why athletes (and celebrities) writ large shy away from giving interesting, honest interviews. So Jalen Rose's thought process was a bit mis-guided and immature when he was 18 years old? Big deal. He had the stones to give an honest recounting of what he was thinking and now he is being pilloried for it. His standing by the comments, with gentler language, is a bit troubling. Though I tend to agree that Coack K appears to recruit kids who fit a certain profile. But again, big deal.

Hill's editorial, while entertaining, is over-the-top and indicates he missed Rose stating that the Uncle Tom comment was 1) his thinking as an angry 18 year-old and 2) largely said out of jealousy.

Oh, the Laettner/Hill rumors (and the knee-jerk reaction they elicit from Duke fans) never get old.

So, according to Jalen, Coach K succeeds despite ignoring a rather large percentage of the most talented high school basketball players in the country. Which makes him just about godlike in his coaching abilities.

Black on black racism is often tougher to withstand than white on black racism. This Uncle Tomfoolery is nasty stuff. There's a lot between the lines of Hill's statement - I would imagine he has dealt with this bullshit non-stop in the NBA.

There is far too much pressure on black athletes to conform. Far too many loaded statements used to enforce that compliance, like Adrian Peterson's ill-considered comparisons to slavery. We all know about limousine liberal white guilt. Just imagine the guilt successful black athletes from tough urban areas endure.

You meant to say, "So, according to Jalen when he was 18 years old..." because that is what he was trying to say in that clip.

Burt Reynoldz said:

I fail to see what is ignorant about commenting on the fact that it was heavily rumored at the time and since that Christian Laettner and Thomas Hill were gay. But, as I said, carry on.

In addition, I've been told that the phrasing and placement of my comment came off as homophobic. Apologies, that was not the intent. I was attempting to make an (apparently) ham-fisted comparison to the outright homophobia often displayed by Duke fans at the suggestion that Laettner/Hill could be gay to the way they are now up in arms over Jalen Rose's comments. Sincerest apologies.

Click to expand...

Ya, that's where I was coming from. That it was a reply to someone that mocked the Fab Five made it come across like you were saying: "Sure, the Fab Five didn't win anything. But at least they aren't gay like the Dukies."

I was hoping that's not what you were implying, and I'm glad to see that's the case. The irony is that you apparently were trying to mock homophobia. Didn't come across like that to me, and it appears I'm not alone there. Don't let that get you down though. I wish you success in your future attempts to mock bigots.

kenneycb said:

You meant to say, "So, according to Jalen when he was 18 years old..." because that is what he was trying to say in that clip.

Click to expand...

Did I? I thought Jalen's clarification was an apology for the Uncle Tom comments, not the accusation that Krzyzewski won't recruit inner-city players.

Soxy Brown said:

Ya, that's where I was coming from. That it was a reply to someone that mocked the Fab Five made it come across like you were saying: "Sure, the Fab Five didn't win anything. But at least they aren't gay like the Dukies."

I was hoping that's not what you were implying, and I'm glad to see that's the case. The irony is that you apparently were trying to mock homophobia. Didn't come across like that to me, and it appears I'm not alone there. Don't let that get you down though. I wish you success in your future attempts to mock bigots.

Click to expand...

I sent this in a PM to Average Reds, I think it more accurately explains my aim there:

Basically, when the rumors about Laettner/Hill came out, Duke fans lost their collective shit; not because they thought that it was offensive that homophobic slurs were being used against their players, but because of the inference that their players could (GASP) be gay. They were horrified that they might have gay players on their team, and reacted in kind. To me, it was the equivalent of the high school bully who tries to punch someone in the face because they call him a "[mean slur for a gay person]" - he's not offended, he just doesn't want people to actually think that he might be gay. Remembering that, in the face of the outrage over 18-year-old Jalen Rose's comments (which I think he actually explained quite eloquently recently as the result of a naive 18 year old mind), and how these people are SHOCKED that he wasn't more tolerant, just strikes me as hypocrisy of the highest order.

This is irony layered upon irony, but I didn't mean to sound so snarky in my reply. With the "Don't let that get you down" part, I was being sincere when I wished you success in your future attempts to mock bigots. Mocking bigots is always a good course of action. With hindsight, it does sound like I'm mocking you instead of promoting the mockery of bigots, when I was really trying to give you credit for admitting a poor choice of words.

Aaaaaannndd.... we have now officially come full circle. Let us all have a drink in honor of this glorious occasion. At the very least, I will be having a drink in honor of this occasion. I will have a drink in honor of any occasion, really. Breathing is an occasion.

This documentary - a one-sided, self-serving affair that takes shots at old rivals and generates lots of controversy for the Worldwide Leader’s talking heads to debate – seems below the ’30 for 30’ brand of quality that has been established.

Good take by Wilbon:

Still, except for the part where Calvin and Janet Hill were left hanging out there, depicted as anything other than the model parents that they are, the documentary and Grant Hill's response is part of a very necessary conversation, one which plays out in what I like to call Black World every hour of every single day in this country and has for the past 400 years. It sure as hell didn't start with basketball players; it started with the resentment that field niggas had for house niggas, and there will be no sanitizing of the term here because the feelings were even more raw than the language. It's a conversation most, though not all, white folks are unfamiliar with, one Spike Lee captured with both insight and humor in his movie "School Daze" including the differences between "good" and "bad" hair, and "talking" white. These are the primary elements of emotional and at times painful discussions that take place, sometimes between members of the same family, one set of children whose father bailed and the other set whose dad stayed and provided a life that in time led to an entirely different reality.

Click to expand...

If you get a chance to see "The Fab Five," you'll notice what I think was an eloquent and passionate recognition of the jealousy Rose felt for Hill. Rose who very carefully says he resented not having what Hill had, as opposed to resenting Hill. It's a powerful moment. And perhaps in that expression Rose felt he had explained that he no longer holds the "Uncle Tom" feelings he did when he was 18. Regardless, "The Fab Five" is worth watching. And Hill's op-ed piece for The Times is well worth reading

Click to expand...

Once I saw all of Rose's comments, not just the Uncle Tom clip, this is what I thought too. The kid Rose was jealous and resentful of Hill, the adult Rose recognized it. I actually thought his full comments in context would cut down any "controversy" from the leaked Uncle Tom comments, but I guess they didn't. And I don't have a problem with Hill's response, he must be sick of this since I'm sure he's heard variations of it almost all his life.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?id=6227464

JimD said:

This documentary - a one-sided, self-serving affair that takes shots at old rivals and generates lots of controversy for the Worldwide Leader’s talking heads to debate – seems below the ’30 for 30’ brand of quality that has been established.

Click to expand...

I honestly can't think of a less apt description for this documentary than your's. Did you watch it or just read the Rose quotes out of context? It's not like ESPN left out the fact that they lost back to back finals, were generally immature, and violated the rules. The bad was in there with the good. Overall, I think it was extremely well-done, featured honest and soulful commentary, and did an excellent job of telling the story of what was undeniably a once-in-a-lifetime team.

Orel Miraculous said:

I honestly can't think of a less apt description for this documentary than your's. Did you watch it or just read the Rose quotes out of context? It's not like ESPN left out the fact that they lost back to back finals, were generally immature, and violated the rules. The bad was in there with the good. Overall, I think it was extremely well-done, featured honest and soulful commentary, and did an excellent job of telling the story of what was undeniably a once-in-a-lifetime team.

Click to expand...

Ditto Orel. It talked about how the Michigan alums weren't exactly thrilled with the Fab 5 (the letters from white upper middle class alums were disturbing). It fully vetted that team, the times, the good and bad...and quite frankly the racial divide in our higher education system that is so exposed in big time athletics. I thought it was one of the top 5 of the shows that have aired so far. Watch The U and the Fab 5 back to back and I think it really exposes the underbelly of big time athletics and the racial tensions that are still there today.

Whitlock's take:

http://msn.foxsports.com/collegebasketball/story/jalen-rose-anti-duke-message-misses-the-point-032111

The points he makes about the damage a man can do when he abandons his children seem far more relevant to disadvantage than skin color.

Clears Cleaver said:

The black players that Grant Hill mentions in his column (battier, Thoma Hill, etc) were almost all middle-class raised or better, not the inner-city kids. By signaling them out, Hill actually makes Rose's point more salient. The black players on Duke were Uncle Tomish comapred to the kids that went to Michigan. The two gang-bangers I can remember from Duke were Maggette and Avery, both left early and neither was persuaded to stay by K (unlike most evey other player). Was Brand from a bad hood? I don't remember.

Click to expand...

This is incorrect. Coach K was firmly against Avery leaving early and that was well known. That year Brand also left early and Coach K was supportive of that move.

Simmons just tweeted link to preview of new 30 for 30 documentaries airing this fall. A couple look real interesting.

BannedbyNYYFans.com said:

Simmons just tweeted link to preview of new 30 for 30 documentaries airing this fall. A couple look real interesting.

Click to expand...

"Catching Hell" is available via PPV on Comcast. I watched it the other day. Nothing all that groundbreaking but I thought it was well done and it was interesting to hear the comments of the people sitting near Bartman.

I need to check this out. Never actually seen the trailer before. Thanks!

If they want to add another one, they should do a 30/30 on the BC point shaving scandal of 1979. There is a book out there called
"Fixed: How Goodfellas Bought Boston College Basketball" by David Porter. It is a fascinating read on how that whole thing came down and the way the scandal changed and ruined lives forever. Great book if you a sports fan who likes crime stories and mafia movies....only this wasn't a movie.

Bumping this thread to remind all that "Catching Hell", a documentary about Steve Bartman and the 2003 NLCS, debuts tonight on ESPN. Alan Sepinwall gives it a thumbs up here: http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/review-espns-30-for-30-brand-lives-on-with-catching-hell

It's not branded as part of 30 For 30 but it might as well be. I'm excited to see it. Seems like Simmons has been touting this one for a year, and the Bartman story still fascinates me.

The day after the Bartman game I got a call from a buddy who was in Chicago working the series. I asked him what it was like out there and I'll never forget his answer: "I'm not trying to be funny....it's like 9/11 out here."

Dehere said:

Bumping this thread to remind all that "Catching Hell", a documentary about Steve Bartman and the 2003 NLCS, debuts tonight on ESPN. Alan Sepinwall gives it a thumbs up here: http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/review-espns-30-for-30-brand-lives-on-with-catching-hell

It's not branded as part of 30 For 30 but it might as well be. I'm excited to see it. Seems like Simmons has been touting this one for a year, and the Bartman story still fascinates me.

The day after the Bartman game I got a call from a buddy who was in Chicago working the series. I asked him what it was like out there and I'll never forget his answer: "I'm not trying to be funny....it's like 9/11 out here."

Click to expand...

It isn't fair of me given the truth that all fan bases can be insane, but after watching this I have absolutely no use for Cubs fans. I never realized how truly horrible it was for Bartman not just in general but specifically that night.

Not liking the start of this

I couldn't help but come away with the distinct impression that Alex Gibney isn't much of a baseball fan.

There was a lot of interesting stuff in there that I wasn't aware of, particularly the lengths that security had to go just to get Bartman out of Wrigley that night, but Gibney tried to weave his own story into the narrative, and his comparisons of Bartman and Buckner, while obvious, seemed forced, and didn't come across as a subject he was in total control over. All in all, considering this was pushed as the crown jewel of the 30 for 30 series, I thought it mostly fell flat, and that there were a bunch of other films in the series that worked better.

I have no idea why this show was two hours. It felt like three.

Dehere said:

Bumping this thread to remind all that "Catching Hell", a documentary about Steve Bartman and the 2003 NLCS, debuts tonight on ESPN. Alan Sepinwall gives it a thumbs up here: http://www.hitfix.com/blogs/whats-alan-watching/posts/review-espns-30-for-30-brand-lives-on-with-catching-hell

It's not branded as part of 30 For 30 but it might as well be. I'm excited to see it. Seems like Simmons has been touting this one for a year, and the Bartman story still fascinates me.

Click to expand...

I missed the airing, but I'm intrigued by this. The commercials looked like they had been branded with the "ESPN presents 30 for 30", or whatever, at the beginning and ends originally and it felt like they had been quickly cut out before being played on air. The trailer and commercials for Catching Hell seem to be in the same vein as the previous 30 for 30 episodes if not being an exact continuation. Multiple places on the internets refer to it as being a 30 for 30 production, including 30 for 30's wikipedia page, which quotes Simmons:

Taken from 30 for 30 creator Bill Simmons' 11/23/10 ESPN chat "We're spinning off the "30 for 30" series next year into something that will probably be called "30 for 30 Presents" or something like that... we're going to be putting out 4-5 sports docs per year on the level of the best "30 for 30" docs and getting the best filmmakers to do them. Same creative team is involved. We have some terrific ideas in the hopper. So even though the SMU doc will be the 30th one (right after the Heisman ceremony) don't think the spirit of the series is going away."

Click to expand...

and then lists 8 more episdoes, 6 of which have yet to air. The hitfix.com link quoted above also refers to it being the 30 for 30 brand.

Notable exceptions to this are the 30 for 30 website itself and the trailer for Catching Hell which is on youtube, which is branded with "ESPN films". Did something happen here, or did they just decide to drop the 30 for 30 name since it might be confusing? I've been thinking that 30 for 30 is one of the few things Simmons has done really well, serving as both a creator, producer, and inspiration for the series while keeping his hands off enough to allow it to flourish, and many, if not most, of the episodes were great. It seems weird that it would be so distanced from the original series and seemingly perhaps Simmons himself. The commercials airing on actual television just before Catching Hell aired were the most jarring, as the beginning and ends felt like they were clipped to remove the branding.

Does anyone know what's going on with this?


also, I'd love to see something like a 30 for 30 done on the BC point shaving scandal, or other gambling scandals in sports, although it doesn't seem likely anytime soon looking at the list of upcoming episodes.

Smiling Joe Hesketh said:

But overall I enjoyed the show. Steve Bartman, the poor bastard, is never gonna get his life back, is he? He can't use credit cards because the cashiers will see his name? My God.

Click to expand...

Agree the show was awesome and I feel badly for Bartman, but the bit about the credit card was cited as a rumor, which seemed pretty irresponsible, as though qualifying it as a rumor allows you to forgo verification and just say any old story some guy who works with Bartman's landlord's sister told you.

In Vino Vinatieri said:

Notable exceptions to this are the 30 for 30 website itself and the trailer for Catching Hell which is on youtube, which is branded with "ESPN films". Did something happen here, or did they just decide to drop the 30 for 30 name since it might be confusing? I've been thinking that 30 for 30 is one of the few things Simmons has done really well, serving as both a creator, producer, and inspiration for the series while keeping his hands off enough to allow it to flourish, and many, if not most, of the episodes were great. It seems weird that it would be so distanced from the original series and seemingly perhaps Simmons himself. The commercials airing on actual television just before Catching Hell aired were the most jarring, as the beginning and ends felt like they were clipped to remove the branding.

Does anyone know what's going on with this?

Click to expand...

The director was on the BS Report. I only heard a little bit at the beginning, but it was originally supposed to be a part of 30 for 30, and the director wanted more time, so ESPN agreed to push it back.

I was as disappointed by this as I have been in any documentary in a long time. The Buckner stuff wasn't relevant to anybody but the filmmaker himself, and it was so odd to use so many clips of Gibney being interviewed on WGN. I've never before seen a movie that used clips from a promotional interview for the movie itself. It took so long to get to the heart of the story. More than 15 minutes into the film they showed one of the WGN clips in which Gibney said something like "I wondered what happened to Bartman after that famous game" which made me think "I've wondered that too....maybe somebody should make a movie about it!"

In another inexplicable choice, the movie came back from commercial with the narrator saying (paraphrasing) "After two hard fought victories in Florida, the Cubs came home with a 3-2 lead." That was it. That was the entirety of time devoted to Games 1 through 5 of that series. So in a documentary about Steve Bartman and the 2003 Cubs we got 15 minutes on Bill Buckner and one sentence on the first five games of the NLCS.

Overall it felt like somebody decided that they had too much material for a 60 minute time period so they tried to stretch it to two hours, and in trying to stretch it the whole thing fell apart. It's definitely not in the top tier of 30 For 30s and given the advance hype it felt to me like a failure.

I think the special was worth watching for the security guard interview alone, but yeah, a lot of the shit was filler. Might have been better as a "top five reasons you can't blame bartman" episode.

I was a little disappointed too. There was fantastic stuff in there. All the camera angles, home footage, and audio they got from the game was special. But like many have said they dropped the ball talking about game 7. Everyone has forgot about game 7. I had totally forgot about game 7, and when they showed the Marlins up 3-0, I just assumed it was a blowout. But then to see Kerry Wood tie the game with a 3-run homer, and then the Cubs take the lead...wow.

But Gibney glossed over it like every Cubs fan, die hard fan of baseball or casual sports fan has in the last 8 years. It should have been up to him to point out how good and feared the Prior-Wood combo was. He should have talked about how late Prior was kept in for. Big mistake.

I also wished he talked to more players on the Cubs team besides Karros, who didn't really say much at all. Shame Baker, Gonzalez, Prior or Woods wouldn't speak.

I didn't get the syncing up the audio that Bartman heard and the action on the field. What was the point? It had nothing to do with confusion. Like most people, Bartman saw a ball come his way and like 98% of people in the situation, forgot about the score and the importance and went for the ball. Listening to the game had nothing to do with anything. Even after this incident, in an exact same situation I bet that most people still go after the ball and don't step back.

Overall, I enjoyed it for all the extra stuff on Bartman, the fans around him, the security guard etc. I also didn't mind the Buckner stuff. It showed that winning does change a lot for the fans and the goat. And as a non-Red Sox fan, I never really knew about how big of a collapse that was before the error. Like Bartman, Buckner took the hit, even though there was so much more to it. But again, Gibney missed the opportunity to talk about how much more there was. People might leave the doc feeling bad for Bartman for everything he has been through and taking the heat, but won't totally understand how ridiculous it was for him to take the heat.

Doc32 said:

I didn't get the syncing up the audio that Bartman heard and the action on the field. What was the point? I had nothing to do with confusion. Like most people, Bartman saw a ball come his way and like 98% of people in the situation, forgot about the score and the importance and went for the ball. Listening to the game had nothing to do with anything. I'd still today, even after this incident, in an exact same situation I bet that most people still go after the ball and don't step back.

Click to expand...

Yeah, seriously. He was testing his own theory that Bartman should have known Alou was there because he was listening to the radio. For some reason though, at no point during the making of the movie, did anybody say "Hey, uhhhh, Alex? All radio is on a delay." What a pointless exercise.

I enjoyed it, but understand the critcisms others had. Some of it was forced to say the least. One thing I will say is that even though they never got an interview with him, I got the sense that Steve Bartman is one strange dude. In fact, more than anything thats what I came away with this from.

I also think his silence (other than that statment delivered by his brother) fueled this whole thing in the few days following the blunder. Although it was hard to be certain, he came across as at the very least a soft spoken, meek type guy. And interview revealing that would have gotten a lot of people, especially media, off his back.

Yeah, he has reportedly turned down six figure offers for interviews/book deals and whatnot. Some cub fan called into Jim Rome today and said, "If he'd just taken responsibility for what he'd done, everything would have blown over and been fine." Okkkkaaaay. Apparently, Bartman still lives in the suburbs of Chicago and is able to get by without being bothered. But it's hard not to feel bad for the guy.

Steve Bartman should - one day - go on television and tell Cubs fans to go fuck themselves. The nerve of some of these meatheads. Apologize? It's a fucking game, you assholes.

Smiling Joe Hesketh said:

I would have loved to see more from Game 7. The Cubs had a 5-3 lead but they barely mentioned it except for showing Wood's HR.

Click to expand...

We had a 3-0 lead through five innings of Game 7 of the 1986 World Series. See how many people give a damn about that.

I thought Gibney did a fantastic job weaving the two stories together and showing people's need to scapegoat someone when something hugely disappointing happens, and how the choice of the scapegoat has a logic all its own. There is no rational reason for anyone to believe that Bill Buckner cost the Red Sox the 1986 World Series unless you believe that his misplay WITH THE GAME ALREADY TIED two nights earlier somehow so shattered the team's confidence that they couldn't hold a three run lead with four innings to go in Game 7. Similarly, Bartman's interfering with Alou had zero effect on Alex Gonzalez misplaying a potential double play, or Mark Prior melting down, or Kerry Wood being unable to hold a 5-3 lead in Game 7 unless you "knew the Cubbies were finished once that guy in the headphones cost them the second out in the eighth inning of Game 6".

These things aren't rational, they're visceral.

This morning, if you see the sentence "Closer Jon Papelbon blew only his third save opportunity of the season last night", you're not going to focus on how good he's been this season or how much he's worked over the past few days; you're much more likely to mentally rewrite the start of the sentence as "Choker Jon Papelbon blew..." and add a bitter "fixed it for you".

When a crushing disappointment infects the soul, reason is its first victim. I think Gibney's film made that point very well.

.

Mystic Merlin said:

Steve Bartman should - one day - go on television and tell Cubs fans to go fuck themselves. The nerve of some of these meatheads. Apologize? It's a fucking game, you assholes.

Click to expand...

The Cub fans ARE a big part of the problem with the Cubs. They have tolerated ownership's incompetence for decades. Very much a fandom of pink hats there, and has been for generations.

Humphrey said:

The Cub fans ARE a big part of the problem with the Cubs. They have tolerated ownership's incompetence for decades. Very much a fandom of pink hats there, and has been for generations.

Click to expand...

The Bartman story shows what happens when years of pinkhattery goes sour really, really fast. For years Wrigley felt like the biggest, most reliable Big 10 frat/sorority reunion. Now it feels like that same reunion when only the mean drunks are left.

Having lived in the midwest for 8 years now, I have been convinced that Cubs fans are among the most detestable assholes in baseball fandom. The mean drunks part is a perfect description.

It's a weird mix of self loathing and a totally insane sense of superiority. The kid from the wealthy, prominent family who's a total fuck up. I get the sense from a lot of them that they don't even really want to win.

Wow that sounds familiar

Do you think Red Sox fans had a sense of superiority before 2007? I don't. And while it may have become obnoxious after 2007, it wasn't insane.

Do you have a lot of experience with Cub fans? Serious question. They are very different--IMHO--than fans of other much more successful teams from the region--e.g., Sox fans, Cards fans, Tiger fans, Reds fans.

Just got around to watching "Catching Hell." I really enjoyed it but two things in particular stuck out...

In the interviews following Game 6 of the '86 WS, I was not aware that Bob Stanley essentially threw Buckner under the bus. Gibney made sure to emphasize that Stanley was all too happy to move the focus from the WP/PB to "that ground ball" or whatever his exact words were. Instead of talking about the failure of Schiraldi and his own failures, he killed his teammate.

The other thing I particularly enjoyed was the way they were able to isolate the seat locations of the particular interview subjects, as well as the iso of just Alou and Bartman regarding whether Alou truly would have been able to catch the ball.

I agree that it was too long but, like others, I had forgotten so many of those details since I was so focused on the ALCS.

Finally saw "Catching Hell," that was some excellent work.

One thing that really stood out to me is that he sorta forwards the theory that if Alou doesn't throw a prissy little girl's hissy fit people might not think twice about that ball down the line. Whenever anyone talks about preferred outcome of "the Bartman play," they do like Gibney does at the end and imagine Alou catching the ball for an out. But if Moises acts like a composed grownup and just shrugs off that ball, there's every chance that the TV/radio people don't really notice and so do not start running their million replays, and some other event in the 8th becomes "the one."

Hell, Gibney notes that Bartman is the best thing to ever happen to Alex Gonzalez.

Also, because Cubs fans can't come off any worse, I was in an American craft beer bar in Amsterdam this weekend (Beer Temple on the Nieuwezijds Voorburgwal - really cool place) and heard an obviously-from-Chicago Cubs fan saying he didn't want to hear any sympathy for Bartman because he cost the Cubs the World Series.

We were saints to Buckner by comparison, especially if you believe the myth that Bartman can't use a credit card in Chicago because he'll be recognized.

Beomoose said:

Finally saw "Catching Hell," that was some excellent work.

One thing that really stood out to me is that he sorta forwards the theory that if Alou doesn't throw a prissy little girl's hissy fit people might not think twice about that ball down the line. Whenever anyone talks about preferred outcome of "the Bartman play," they do like Gibney does at the end and imagine Alou catching the ball for an out. But if Moises acts like a composed grownup and just shrugs off that ball, there's every chance that the TV/radio people don't really notice and so do not start running their million replays, and some other event in the 8th becomes "the one."

Click to expand...

I kind of agree with this except for one thing - is it even remotely conceivable that a highly competitive professional athlete would simply shrug off that play?

Whether Alou could have caught the ball or not, I just cannot imagine any MLB outfielder - with the possible exception of JD, who may have shot a look and then calmly walked away - not throwing a hissy fit there. It's just not in their nature. They want to catch everything, and rightly or wrongly, they expect that they won't have to deal with fan interference in their home park. So when something like this happens, yeah, they act like infants.

Bartman was the victim of the perfect storm of circumstances. But what should have saved him from his fate was not for Alou to act like a grownup in the heat of the moment, but for Cubs fans to act like normal human beings in the subsequent days/weeks.

I agree with what you're saying, I guess what I'm trying to express is my surprise that so many people admitted to not really paying attention to the play until the Alou hissy, and how much that kicked the storm off. I wouldn't say Moises was "called out" or anything like that, but Gibney did do something interesting by moving beyond the standard "could he have caught it? what if he caught it?" speculation.

There's a film tonight called The Dotted Line at 8 pm on ESPN. It's a behind-the-scenes look at the sports agency business. I saw some of the preview and it looks good.

Watched The Dotted Line last night and really enjoyed it. Was really interested by the scenes with Eugene Lee and also those with Luchs. Well worth a watch.

Grin&MartyBarret said:

Yeah, seriously. He was testing his own theory that Bartman should have known Alou was there because he was listening to the radio. For some reason though, at no point during the making of the movie, did anybody say "Hey, uhhhh, Alex? All radio is on a delay." What a pointless exercise.

Click to expand...

Did they change the movie after the first airing? When I saw the documentary last week, they showed the play with the radio synced, and then said "we learned that radio is delayed", and showed the play with the 7 second delay, and it was just kind of pointless.