Taking your kid to school

I remember the first day of Kindergarten like it was yesterday. We dropped her off and were scared to death the whole day. She never behaved quite "normal", whatever the hell that means. We knew that there was a very good likelihood that things would not go well that day at South Meadows Elementary. When we went to retrieve her, the student teacher or teacher helper simply said "oh, she really struggled" or something to that effect. She was her usual self of not being happy until she was alone at home.

That was 1997.

On February 22, 2011, we took her to school again. This time to college and it was much, much harder. I have been in agony and have been scared even more than I was 14 years ago. She is not just in school around the corner for the first time, she is at a college 100 miles away and on her own for the first time. She is responsible for getting up on time, for taking care of herself, for brushing her teeth and doing homework and eating and everything else that we take for granted. I can envision her laying on her bed crying because she is hungry and missed dinner or didn't like what they had or didn't know what to do or just needed help. She has always had help and now she doesn't. Cold turkey. Will she grow up and do well or will she crumble under the pressure of learning to take care of herself? I am hoping and praying for the former. I know she is smart enough, but worry about her naivety and her innocence.

I wish she would call me like we told her to do. I wish I could just get a simple report of "I'm OK. I ate dinner. I made it to class on time. The alarm clock worked. I know what time class is tomorrow." Thats all I want. Is that too much?

Miguel Cabrera DUI arrest

Miguel Cabrera's arrest for DUI on February 16, 2011

Full Arrest report

Overview

Miguel was drunk, flat out shitfaced drunk. He drank his scotch in front of the police and seems like he was behaving as a total asshole douchebag. I am not making any excuses for any of his behavior. Stupid, dumb, ridiculous, reckless, selfish, criminal, etc, etc, etc.

This being his second offense, it raises red flags that perhaps Miguel has a drinking problem or perhaps he is even an alcoholic. I don't know if he does or if he is, but it seems like it to an objective, distant observer like myself.

Generally accepted theory

Miguel was drinking.

He got into his car and drove towards home.

He banged up his car on the way home.

Cops come and he is an asshole.

They arrest him for DUI and he pulls the "don't you know who I am line".

My questions

I have zero doubt that he was drunk and that he was an obnoxious prick. But, I have doubts if he was driving the car that night. I think there are some clues in the police report that hint at the idea that Miguel was not driving the car before or after the police arrived at the scene. I don't know if I am right or I am wrong, but I think there are enough questions and enough doubt that somebody should be asking questions.

Clue #1

The officer had asked him who was with him and he replied "I am going to fucking kill him".

Who would say that if he was alone? Even a drunk person wouldn't say that. Does this even make sense to say 'I am going to kill somebody' when you are alone? I don't think so. So, who was he talking about?

Clue #2

The report indicates that "the keys were in the ignition". If Miguel were seen driving, would they have written that? If he were in the driver’s seat with his belt on and clearly having driven, would they have written that? If there were any doubt that he was driving would they write that? Does it make sense? I don't think so. Why would they feel the need to write that?

Clue #3

This one is more subtle. Miguel supposedly said "Don't you know who I am? Don't you know my problems?" Granted, this sounds like a self-absorbed, over-paid athlete who screwed up and doesn't like getting caught. But, what if the context of the 'my problems' statement is that he was saying something like "do you think I was driving? do you think I am stupid? don't you know that I have a drinking problem?"

Theory

OK, here is a theory of the sequence of events that ties this stuff together. Again, I am not saying this is what happened, but merely a possibility.

Miguel was at a party drinking. Way too much.

He gets drunk as hell and either asks somebody to drive him home or somebody insists or some variation thereof.

The other person is driving him home (and perhaps he is also impaired) and they get into an accident. This would explain the smoke come from the car that is referenced in the police report.

With the car on the side of the road after the accident, the driver leaves to either get help or to flee the situation - perhaps because he was drinking.

This leaves Cabrera alone sitting in the passenger seat.

The cops show up, see that he is drunk and being a disrespectful asshole.

The keys are in the ignition and he is in the car, so they arrest him for DUI.

When they explain the DUI charge, he says "Are you fucking crazy? Don't you know who I am? Don't you know about my alcohol problem? There is no fucking way I would be driving like this?"

Conclusion

Either of the theories is possible. It’s certainly possible that the first, more simple, explanation is the truth. But, I feel, the second explanation is also possible. Ask yourself this question: If the second theory was what actually occurred, would this contradict anything that we already know from the statements or from the police report? And, if it does not contradict anything that we know, they why is it not possible?

If Cabrera reaches a plea deal with the prosecutors, then we'll never know what actually happened. If there is no plea, we may still never know, unless somebody asks questions.

Ferris Bueller - what game did he attend?

What game did Ferris Bueller attend?

The original post from Baseball Prospectus: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12877

Author Larry Granillo makes the claim, based on the evidence presented in the movie, plus baseball statistics that the Cubs game Ferris and pals attended on his infamous day off was Cubs-Braves on June 5, 1985. While I have no direct evidence that this was not the game, I have evidence that Granillo's logic is faulty and this makes his conclusion dubious. Let's start by quoting the column for the pertenant points:

Quotes from the movie:
"On the screen we see Chicago first-baseman #10 holding on an Atlanta Braves player wearing #18. The announcer pipes in: "Runner on first base, nobody out. That's the first hit they've had since the fifth inning, and only the fourth hit in the game. … 0-2 the count."
Chicago pitcher #46 throws the pitch to a left-handed Atlanta hitter with a two-digit number ending in "5" and what appears to be a long last name. The batter swings at the pitch and hits a long fly ball to left. "That's a drive! Left field... twisting... and into foul territory."
The Chicago leftfielder races for the ball but it screams foul, into Ferris' hand. The announcer continues with a train of thought we must have missed: "Boy, I'm really surprised they didn't go for it in that inning. Lee Smith..."
This is the point where Principal Rooney has his brief conversation with the pizza maker. In the background, we hear one of the announcers say something about playing "a very shallow third". We then hear "There's the ball bunted foul back to the screen. Boy I don't know...""

Granillo's conclusions:
Ferris Bueller and his pals were at the June 5, 1985, tilt between the Cubs and the Braves. The foul ball that Ferris caught was hit by Atlanta rightfielder Claudell Washington (#15) in the top of the 11th inning. The game was tied at two (not scoreless, like the pizza guy claimed) and backup second-baseman Paul Zuvella (#18) was being held on first by Leon Durham (#10) after a leadoff single (the fourth hit of the game, and Atlanta's first hit since the fifth). Washington would end his at-bat with a flyball to leftfielder Davey Lopes. The next batter, Rafael Ramirez, would wind up hitting a two-run home run and the Braves would go on to win 4-2. The movie, however, cut away before that happened.

My comments:
Granillo's claims that this occurred in the top of the 11th inning because players on those rosters match up with the numbers seen in the movie, which is probably good reasoning. However, there is one breakdown in this logic. If Claudell Washington (or anybody), were to foul the ball back to the screen with a bunt attempt on an 0-2 count, that would be a strikeout and the end the at-bat. He would not have the opportunity to hit a fly ball to left field as is the case in that at bat.

I looked at the box score and inning log from that game to make sure that Granillo didn't make a simple mistake of how that at-bat ended. He did not. Washington did, in fact, fly out to left field to end his top of the 11th at-bat. So, the sequence of events that Granillo lays out is simply wrong.

Why? Not sure, but a few possibilities:
1. Wrong game. I could spare the 20 minutes it took to write this, but cannot spend hours looking through games to find the right one. Who says that it absolutely happened in 1985/86 anyway? Could have been sooner. Did he look through 1984 also?
2. Movie put video from some random game that Matthew Broderick attended with the audio from some other game. In this case, the author is wasting his time trying to find the answer to a question that is unanswerable.
3. The movie, for some reason, clipped together audio that didn't work together. More specifically, the bunt statement is incorrect.

If I had to guess, I would say #2 is most plausible although #1 is certainly possible.



UPDATE

Email chain with the author:

----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Chris K
To: Larry Granillo
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 8:38:54 PM
Subject: Re: [bpsite] February 06, 2011 Wezen-Ball: Ferris Bueller's Day Off at Wrigley Field

i knew it didn't add up. now an asst director says it was from sept 24, 1985. sorry dude.

http://chicago.sbnation.com/chicago-cubs/2011/2/8/1983179/ferris-bueller-cubs-game-mystery-definitively-solved


From:Larry Granillo
To: Chris K
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 7:59:13 PM
Subject: Re: [bpsite] February 06, 2011 Wezen-Ball: Ferris Bueller's Day Off at Wrigley Field

Very fair to question 1985 strategy. But remember, 2 of those RBIs and that homer came in that 11th inning AB, so he just had a 2B and 2 RBI at the time of the AB. I believe whole-heartedly that a 1985 manager would have Ramirez bunt in that situation, even if it wsan't the smartest move...

Thanks for writing!
-- lar

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 12:46 PM, Chris K wrote:
Thanks so much for writing. I did not expect that.

Interesting theory. My initial response would be that Ramirez had 4 RBI that game with an HR and 2B. Would he really be bunting in that situation?

Yes, I am a geek. I love this stuff. That is, I love questioning baseball strategy from 1985. Note: June of 1985 was special to me as I graduated High School that month.

http://home.comcast.net/~cpkmvk/Ferris.html


----- Forwarded Message ----
From: Larry Granillo
To: CHRIS K
Sent: Tue, February 8, 2011 1:28:46 PM
Subject: Re: [bpsite] February 06, 2011 Wezen-Ball: Ferris Bueller's Day Off at Wrigley Field

Thanks, Chris.

You're definitely right about the bunt-foul thing. I considered it. But there's enough uncertainty in the timeline of the audio, that I think it still fits. With the gaps around that line, it's very possible that they could already be in the Ramirez at-bat. And a bunt-attempt by the #2 hitter on the first pitch with one out and a runner at first in a tie game in extra innings is very likely, especially in 1985. And, since we don't have the pitch-by-pitch account, it's hard to know for sure.

Thanks!
-- lar

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 11:35 AM, CHRIS K wrote:
BP Username: (Not a registered BP User)
Source IP:
Server IP:
Publish: yes_initials
I'm not sure you are correct on the date, at least as far as the evidence goes from the movie.

You say that the count on Washington was 0-2 when he hit the foul ball that Ferris caught. Then indicate the announcer says 'There's the ball bunted foul back to the screen. Boy I don't know...' and later you say: 'Washington would end his at-bat with a flyball to leftfielder Davey Lopes.'

If he fouled a bunt back to the screen with an 0-2 count, that would be a strikeout and he would have no opportunity to fly out to LF.

So, your logic is faulty and therefore, your conclusion is probably faulty also. Washington did strikeout once in that game, but you are correct that he was out on a flyball to left in the top of the 11th.

Not sure if can argue these points as it seems clear to me. Please email me. I'm also on twitter @chriskuss.

Thanks,
Chris K


So, I guess his point is that between the statements: "Boy, I'm really surprised they didn't go for it in that inning. Lee Smith" and ""There's the ball bunted foul back to the screen. Boy I don't know..."", it is possible that Washington flew out on the 0-2 count and next hitter came to the plate and fouled the bunt attempt. I would have to check the movie to see how big of a time gap between these statements and any other clues (do we hear the next batter being announced? any audible reaction from the out?) to see if I agree.

Another point with this theory: the #2 hitter that would have been up and tried to bunt in the top of the 11th with one out and one on in a tie game, was Ramirez. In that game Ramirez had already homered and doubled with 4 RBI. Would the hot hand really be bunting in that situation?

The FINAL Word

Here is another column from a different source that seems to solve the mystery (amost): http://chicago.sbnation.com/chicago-cubs/2011/2/8/1983179/ferris-bueller-cubs-game-mystery-definitively-solved

Basically, the video from the movie is from the date that Granillo claims (June 5, 1985), but the date that Broderick and the other actors actually attended Wrigley Field was September 24, 1985. The author does not address the audio from the movie, the reference to the 0-2 count, the bunt foul, the flyout or next batter...etc..

So, I will stick to my theory that the video and audio are from two different games. And now we know that the video of the characters was from yet a different game. So, 3 games for 3 different aspects of these scenes. Thats my story and I am sticking to it.............