Bartman Cost The Cubs... NOT!!!

[chiburb]

According to an academic (with impeccable credentials) the fan's "interference" reduced the Cubs chances of winning by such a small margin that there's no way he can be held responsible.

Here's a snip, and link below if you'd like to read more:

Before the play, leading 3-0 with one out in the eighth inning, the Cubs had a 91 percent chance of winning the game, according to the analysis. If Alou had made the catch, the Cubs' chance of winning would have jumped to 94 percent. But even without the catch, there was a 91 percent chance.

That means the foul-ball fiasco cut the Cubs' chance of winning by only 3 percent.

Much bigger factors were Alex Gonzalez's error (10 percent), Derrek Lee's double (34 percent) and Mike Mordecai's double (more than 20 percent).

"The 3 percent effect of the fan was small potatoes,'' said Polak, who got his masters degree in history at Northwestern.

If you add the fact that the Cubs still had a 50 percent chance of winning Game 7, the fan's interference affected their chance of going to the World Series by only 1.5 percent.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/cubs/cst-spt-fan24.html

[VermontDem2004]

1. I agree

We don't need physics to prove that Bartman was not the reason the Cubs lost.

[ShaneGR]

2. Has the Chicago media kept harassing the poor guy?

I felt so bad for the chap.

[chiburb]

3. They've stopped...

Here's a good ethical debate on outing him:

Snip:

The code of ethics couldn't be clearer. It begins, "First, do no harm."

Sorry. My mistake. Different profession. Journalists deal in harm every day, knowing full well that if the truth were never harmful folks wouldn't be so insistent about keeping a lid on it. When it comes to harm, the rule of thumb journalists operate by, near as I can make out, says, "When in doubt, roll the presses and let the chips fall where they may."

Editor in chief Michael Cooke has said there were doubts inside the Sun-Times about publishing the name of Steven Bartman. But publish the Sun-Times did, putting the name (and a lot more) on its Web site the day after the game. A lot of people think the Sun-Times should have listened to its conscience. If harm comes to Bartman, his name could live forever not connected to a saloon keeper's curse but as a symbol of the press's willingness to screw the little guy.

The conduct of the Sun-Times set off a terrific debate. I tracked a representative thread on a listserv connecting journalism graduates of the University of Missouri, my alma mater. The wrangling began just minutes after the Sun-Times outed Bartman, another sign of the obsolescence of measured reflection. "The standard I like to use is whether or not there would be a strong likelihood of harm coming to someone if we publish his name," wrote assistant journalism professor Vincent Filak of Ball State University. "Given what I know about Cubs fans . . . I'd say that there's a pretty good likelihood of harm coming to this guy."

http://www.chireader.com/hottype/index.html

[Muddleoftheroad]

5. What he did was public

and he did get his face plastered all over the national media. THAT made him who he was. I feel sorry for him, but I would have written the story.

[Journeyman]

15. Google "Oliver Sipple" and "Assassination Attempt". . .

on the life of President Ford before you so blithely decree that the public's "right to know" takes precedence over the individual's right to privacy.

[Rich Hunt]

12. yeah, I read that article

It never made the case for the "relevance" of revealing Bartman's name, hometown and place of employment. It quoted some journalism school grads who felt that it was necessary to report his name because his name was a "fact". What poor logic. I don't see any justification for it besides selling newspapers.

Also, what the fans around him said and did was public as well. The way the media behaved around him was also "public" - conducting a stakeout outside of his home. The Sun-Times also quoted some guy named Paul Springer who said that Bartman "should be killed". How's that for public?

[VermontDem2004]

4. I heard he he done a show

on According to Jim. There is a clip where Jim's wife throws Jim the keys and Bartman reaches out and the keys hit him on the arm, it is a spoof of the foul ball.

[pmbryant]

6. LOL. It's all how you spin the numbers, I guess.

Using those same numbers: with the interference the Cubs' chances of losing were 9%; without the interference the Cubs' chances of losing were 6%.

So you could say the interference increased the Cubs' chances of losing game 6 by half.

That's pretty significant, I think. Obviously just one part of a series of events that spelled the Cubs' doom, but not an insignificant part.

--Peter

[VermontDem2004]

7. It's not that significant imo

but the numbers weren't spent. 91% chance of winning is the same as 9% chance of loosing.

[chiburb]

11. Exactly. It was 9% chance of losing...

Before the foul ball, it remained a 9% chance after Bartman's play.

[pmbryant]

14. It was significant, just not the deal breaker

Just because the guy is getting a undeserved bad rap doesn't mean that the interference didn't affect the game in a significant way. No, that play didn't cause the loss, but it contributed to it. And given that it was not determined by the players on the field, it is quite unusual.

I don't understand what you mean by "the numbers weren't spent". That 91% chance of winning == 9% chance of losing was exactly my point.

:shrug:

Go Marlins! (Don't blow this 3-2 lead like some other teams I know.)

--Peter

[maxpower]

8. Good Point

However, the momentum of the game/series changed at that point. The whole myth of the "curse" crept in to the players heads. To blame him for the failure is unfortunate, however it did take the wind out of their sales.

[VermontDem2004]

9. I get tired of this momentum BS argument

Like the scientist said, paid professionals should be able to overcome a 3% change. Plus 3 feet to the left it would've just been another foul ball.

[Gato Moteado]

10. bartman was just another victim of the curse..actually a tool of the curse

the dude from northwestern is wrong. the cubs had a 0% chance of winning the series with or without bartman. i lived thru 1969, 1984, 1989, and 1998 and with or without steve bartman, the cubs were not gonna win the pennant. i said this from before the series even started (ask greatauntoftriplets) and even after the cubbies had a 3-1 game lead and all my friends were dancing around talking about a cub dynasty all i could do was shake my head.

it's hard to be a cub fan. we are cursed. but, at least they don't fool me any more.

[pmbryant]

13. 0% chance. That's about right ;-)

I'll feel better about the Cubs losing to the Marlins if the Marlins do their duty and off the infernal Yankees. ;-)

--Peter

[corarose]

16. Cub's would have lost anyway

Batman's life is at stake in the burbs of Chicago and they need to leave him alone.

[Don_G]

17. It Dosen't Matter

After that fateful night, he will be enshrined in Cub's history for the next century at least.