I’m under the impression it was a Metrodome-single as well. If Polanco had snared it, they probably would have just gotten the force at second because Matt Tolbert runs really well. On the other hand, it would’ve erased Brendan Harris, which means that Alexi Casilla would have never entered the game…Ah, who am I kidding? Harris could have singled just as easily as Casilla.

The game shoulda never went into extra’s anyways.

End of story- he gets hit, we go up a run and Keppel pitches differently to Laird. And even if Laird fans, we have Santiago hitting next. And even if we only go up a run, it encourages Rodney to be more conservative, or Leyland to put in a new pitcher.

We got screwed.

Should he keep the ball in front of him – possibly we win. Also if Curtis doesn’t make a base running error we still have runners at the corners with 2 down.

There are many what ifs, but running through them doesn’t change the fact there were many opportunities squandered and the end result was a Tigers’ loss.

Assuming if A happened or didn’t happen, then B would be different is a false assumption. it’s a frequent one in sports. “If we had only gotten that call, we’d win. If he had only gotten to that ball, we win.” But very rarely can you say something for sure would lead to a different result. A dropped pop-up with one out left in the game, sure. After that, the certainty will go down.

If Raburn doesnt play a single into a triple, maybe the tigers win. If Polanco gets to the ball, maybe he turns a double play. But you know what, maybe the next batter hits a home run because he’s pitched to differently, too.

A popular thing to say after a 1-hitter is, “If only he hadn’t allowed George that hit in the third inning, he would have had a no-hitter.”

Yes and no.

Yes, if you take away George’s hit, that’s no hits allowed.

But no, you do not know that is the case. If George didn’t get the hit in the third inning, maybe someone else gets the hit in the eighth because the pitcher realizes he has a no hitter, or the batters try harder to avoid being no-hit, or the wind gusts at the wrong time, or any other number of reasons.

It is a fallacy to assume event B happens regardless of event A. In your mind, event B happens because you want it to happen and nothing more.

So — and I never once argued the Tigers scoring a run wouldn’t increase their chances of winning, I argued the Tigers scoring a second run could not be claimed with certainty — let’s start this over.

If Inge gets hit, a run scores. That is a certainty because the bases are loaded. But you cannot assume any more runs score after that point. Maybe they do, maybe they don’t.

So, OK, Inge gets hit and the Tigers lead by a run. We are now in an alternative reality. Assuming the same set of events follows the reality is a false assumption. In the alternative reality, everything is different. Pitchers look at the situations differently. Managers look at the situations differently. Batters look at the situation differently.

Another way of looking at it. If the umpire called a pitch a strike instead of a ball, it improves the pitchers’ chances of getting a positive outcome. But it does not guarantee that outcome.

Thus the re-imagining of a situation is a fruitless task where you try to talk yourself into believing a positive for your team would have occurred if only something else didn’t interfere.

The Tigers did not play well enough. They lost. Anything else is a work of fiction.