MLB 2008

[Lammycat]

What the hell is a "jeter?"

[bjorn_skurj]

Good interview with Bill James on the NYT Freakonomics blog:

 

http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008...l-questions/?hp

 

Q: Why can

[MrRain422]

The Tigers suck.

 

Fuck.

[cryptique]

The Tigers suck.

 

Fuck.

I have one Tiger on my fantasy roster, and of course it's the fucker who's now 0-for-10 on the year.

[Oil Can Boyd]

Dice-K threw it nicely tonight.

And Lester wasn't so bad today ...

[PigSooie]

And Lester wasn't so bad today ...

 

 

indeed

[bobbob1313]

Has anyone else noticed this:

 

Angel Pagan?

 

And if Andrew Miller ever learns to throw his curve and change for strikes he'll be alot of fun to watch.

[bjorn_skurj]

Total bush blown call by those umps.

[Reni]

the White Sox are sucking so bad.....

 

Hey Rocky - at least the Sox or the Tigers will get some wins this weekend.

[MrRain422]

I'm gonna be there on Saturday. Hopefully Dontrelle's Tiger debut will be solid.

[bobbob1313]

Total bush blown call by those umps.

 

Yes the Pro-Marlins bias that MLB is so famous for rears it's ugly head once again.

[MattZ]

Yes the Pro-Marlins bias that MLB is so famous for rears it's ugly head once again.

 

It was a bad call. Especially since they had the call right and then overruled themselves. Bjorn wasnt suggesting bias.

[Twisted Acres]

Yes the Pro-Marlins bias that MLB is so famous for rears it's ugly head once again.

 

It was plain as day to see it was a poor call. Had Hanley hit it, I'd be saying the same thing. Shit, had A-Rod hit it, I'd be saying the same thing. No bias implied by anyone.

[bobbob1313]

The Mets didn't need any more runs. It's not the type of thing you should be complaining about when you are already up 5-0 and you end up winning 13-0.

 

And really, that's a tough call from the field. Beltran held up at 2nd even though they called it a home run.

[Lammycat]

The Mets didn't need any more runs. It's not the type of thing you should be complaining about when you are already up 5-0 and you end up winning 13-0.

Why should it matter how many runs they have? If the manager lets the umpire "get away" with a shitty call once (especially this early in the season) without a little protest then the argument next time is less effective. Not that calls are expected to be reversed but that the umpire may be influenced to swing the other way next time in a similar situation.

 

It's never a bad time for a manager to voice concern over a questionable call.

[Twisted Acres]

The Mets didn't need any more runs. It's not the type of thing you should be complaining about when you are already up 5-0 and you end up winning 13-0.

 

Bobbob, that's a ridiculous comment. What was it, 4-0 at the time? Pitching is at such a premium in this over-expanded era that a lead of 6 runs or less is rarely safe. And pitch counts, especially this early in the season, usually mean you're going to lean on your bullpen, so anything goes.

 

No one knew how many runs were going to be subsequently scored after that relatively-early event... and the point really is that they blew a call. What if it were the playoffs and the team that hit the homer were down 2 runs in the 8th?

 

please say you don't really need this sort of stuff explained to you...

[bobbob1313]

I understand all that, I just think it's sort of ridiculous to be complaining about this in this instance. The Marlins starter couldn't find the strike zone, the bullpen had pitched like 12 innings in the first 2 games, and even Beltran didn't think it was home run, as he pulled up at 2nd base before they called it a double. The umpires were signaling for a home run the entire time and he still pulled up.

 

This is an instance where I'd like to see some instant replay, though. It was a tough call to make on the field, because Dolphin stadium has metal poles at the top of the wall and so when the ball hits there, it looks like it hits off the top of the wall. This isn't the first time this has happened.

[MattZ]

The Mets didn't need any more runs. It's not the type of thing you should be complaining about when you are already up 5-0 and you end up winning 13-0.

 

And really, that's a tough call from the field. Beltran held up at 2nd even though they called it a home run.

 

Since others have already more artfully pointed out the problem with your first comment, I will say that I agree with your 2nd point. It is a tough call from the field. But they made the right call. They reversed themselves to get it wrong. If its such a tough call from the field, how convinced do they have to be to reverse themselves? That was my big problem with it. The 2b ump made the right call and he was in the best position to make the call.

[bobbob1313]

Alright, they made the wrong call. It was a tough call to make, I don't think the 2B ump is really in any better position than anyone else to make that call. It could go either way, and the fact of the matter is they called it wrong. Isn't that what people love about baseball? The 'human' element of the umpire? They make mistakes, and all that. I'm personally all for some instant replay in baseball, but a lot of purists hate it.

[bjorn_skurj]

The Mets didn't need any more runs. It's not the type of thing you should be complaining about when you are already up 5-0 and you end up winning 13-0.

 

And really, that's a tough call from the field. Beltran held up at 2nd even though they called it a home run.

What if Beltran has a MONSTER year and threatens Bonds' home run record? What then!?!?!?!?!? And it's not like Willie Randolph went out there and pulled a Larry Bowa. (Which would have been funny.) And, I will make the point that the Mets lost the division last year by one game. The NL East is tougher than Mongolian yak dickleather this year. Any team in that division is capable of beating any other team in it at any time and the Marlins always play the Mets hard. My irk, which was mild, yes, was that the ump that made the call allowed himself to be overturned. As in football, instant replay is the kind of thing which you love when it goes your way, despise if it doesn't. As long as it doesn't get used to review balls and strikes, it's OK with me.

[MrRain422]

Also, there's a lot of politics involved. If you make a big enough stink now, then you might get a close call in your favor from that ump later in the series.

[Twisted Acres]

doesn't. As long as it doesn't get used to review balls and strikes, it's OK with me.

 

I agree. Love the Felix the Cat avatar.

[cryptique]

I am in favor of very limited use of replay in baseball.

 

In my view, home run calls should be reviewable at the discretion of the umpiring crew. If no one on the crew is dead certain of the call, review that sucker. I think foul/fair calls are another candidate for this treatment.

 

I'd like to see a challenge allotted to each manager, but probably only one per game, so most of the time they'd be saved until later innings and possibly not used at all. Those challenges could be used for out/safe calls at any base or home plate. I'd hope that there'd be a way to prevent managers from issuing challenges just to give a reliever more time to warm up.

 

I'm undecided whether catch vs. trap calls in the outfield should be reviewable under certain circumstances. I'm also not sure about plays where the runner has to tag after the catch is made, or disputes over whether a base was touched by the runner or whether the runner ran outside of the base line. On all of those, I'm inclined to exclude them from replay but could probably be convinced otherwise.

 

Under no circumstances, however, should balls and strikes be reviewable.

[Lammycat]

Selig isn't a big fan of instant-replay for the main reason that it may slow games down. The GM's voted almost all in favor of it for boundary issues ( fair/foul home run/not a hr).

 

It's never been suggested by anyone that ir be used for ball/strike issues, for good reason.

 

I think it'd be a plus to use it for boundary issues but disagree with cryptique that managers be allotted X (1?) amount of calls per game as that would almost ensure they get used each game which will slow games down and break the rhythm of the game and certainly not for safe/out calls.

 

The head of the umpiring crew should be able to use ir at his discretion. Umpires almost always get the calls right as it is, and have increasingly shown willingness to reverse calls when they are wrong, which is a huge plus compared to the attitudes of the umpires up until about 10 years ago.

 

Regardless, it can be extremely difficult to make a call while 100 ft.+ away from a ball. Technology could help in these few instances to get it right, but again, I think it should be at the discretion of the umpiring crew.

[MrRain422]

Selig's view that it would slow down the game makes sense theoretically. But I think in a lot of instances it could also speed the game up by making it unnecessary for the umpires to meet for 10 minutes to discuss it rather than just looking at it on video.