Winston Legthigh Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 It's just for this year. Besides, it hasn't hurt the Reds. Or the Yankees. Or the Nationals. Still, if I'm the owner of the Reds, and they sweep, I'm pissed that I got one home game, and the money that goes with it. Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Still, if I'm the owner of the Reds, and they sweep, I'm pissed that I got one home game, and the money that goes with it. Who's to say they wouldn't have gotten swept if they had opened at home? Then they would have only gotten two games at home instead of at least three. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 I'm just saying. There's 3 guaranteed games in the opening round. If I'm the owner of the team that won home advantage, I want two of those games. Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 its a legitimate beef, but im pretty tired of hearing about it. win at least one game on the road, then you get three chances to win two at home. good baseball teams should be able to win anywhere. it's a onetime quirk, and the owners voted on the damn thing in the first place. home field is way more important in the next two rounds anyway (though world series home field is obviously the biggest flaw in baseball right now, something we can all agree on) Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 The handwringing about home field advantage has gotten old. Especially since there isn't much correlation between it and playoff success. Especially this year. Home teams are 2-6 in the playoffs so far. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Problem is it wasn't an infield fly and the ump didn't call it until after the ball had hit the ground. How do you know this? Were you on the field? It is a verbal call until the ball hits the ground. Link to post Share on other sites
Sweet Papa Crimbo Posted October 9, 2012 Author Share Posted October 9, 2012 How do you know this? Were you on the field? It is a verbal call until the ball hits the ground. Arm in the air. Plus...it was 40' into the outfield...thereby not AND INFIELD FLY. Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 you know the rule doesnt say that it has to be in the infield at all, right? hell, it can be even further into the outfield if the ump deems it so. it concerns infielders, and whether or not they can catch a pop up with a reasonable effort. not to say that was the right call in that game (personally I think it was wrong, more for the delayed call than the position in the outfield) but its at the umpire's judgement. and the call was late, but not "after the ball hit the ground" late. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Arm in the air. Plus...it was 40' into the outfield...thereby not AND INFIELD FLY. Under the Official Baseball Rules used in Major League Baseball and many lower leagues, "Infield Fly" is explained by rule 2.00 (Definitions of terms: Infield Fly), and rule 6.05e (Batter is out).The rule applies only when there are fewer than two outs, and there is a force play at third base (i.e., when there are runners at first and second base, or the bases are loaded).[1] In these situations, if a fair fly ball is in play, and in the umpire's judgment it is catchable by an infielder with ordinary effort, the umpire shall call "infield fly" (or more often, "infield fly, batter's out"); the batter will be out[2] regardless of whether the ball is actually caught in flight. Umpires typically raise the right arm straight up, index finger pointing up, to signal the rule is in effect.If "infield fly" is called and the fly ball is caught, it is treated exactly as an ordinary fly ball; the batter is out, there is no force, and the runners must tag up. On the other hand, if "infield fly" is called and the ball lands fair without being caught, the batter is still out, and there is still no force, but the runners are not required to tag up. In either case, the ball is live, and the runners may advance on the play, at their own peril. According to the rules is not where the ball lands it is in relationship to the infielder and his ability (or perceived ability) to catch the ball. So where the ball landed is irrelevant. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 Why does it matter when it was called? Link to post Share on other sites
bleedorange Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 After watching the play...it seemed like a lot more than "ordinary effort" was required for the shortstop to make the catch. If an infielder has to turn and run and then keep drifting back and back in order to get under it, I don't see how it can be called. Although, it is a lot closer than some people would have you believe. Link to post Share on other sites
The High Heat Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I've seen the IFR called in the grass just beyond the infield dirt, but never that far out; and never with the infielder still moving away from the infield. I think Chipper Jones summed up the play and the game in the simplest of words. He said he understands the IFR as the fielder has to be able to catch the pop up while being able to camp under it. This particular pop up would have had to be caught by an outgoing infielder or incoming outfielder - it was not a gimmie. Chipper also said the Braves lost because they made three errors, none bigger than his own. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted October 9, 2012 Share Posted October 9, 2012 I think Kozma was camped underneath it. When he flinched and moved out of the way, another 2 seconds passed before the ball hit the ground. He had time to move 5-6 feet away from his spot before the ball landed. Link to post Share on other sites
MrRain422 Posted October 10, 2012 Share Posted October 10, 2012 Why does it matter when it was called? The rule does stipulate that the umpire should call it "Immediately" when it is apparent that it is an infield fly, though I suppose one could argue when exactly it became apparent. I think that the rule was applied correctly by the wording of the rule, though contrary to the spirit of it. The shortstop was clearly camped underneath the play, making it applicable according to the definition in the rulebook. However, the whole point of the rule is to protect the hitting team from the infielder intentionally dropping the ball so as to get a double play by getting force outs against the runners that were hanging back at the base in anticipation of the catch. In this instance, the play was so deep that there was no real possibility of such a double play working out, even if they did drop it on purpose, as there'd only be enough time to maybe get the lead runner, but not both. Link to post Share on other sites
KevinG Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Flipping Yanks Though this O's / Yanks series is looking to be shaping up as a good one. Link to post Share on other sites
Muzzle of Dan Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Gotta love the Cardinals giving the Nats hell in the NLDS! Getting some good run support. Link to post Share on other sites
Lammycat Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I wonder how Mike Rizzo is feeling these days. It was a horrible decision several weeks ago and it's blatantly apparent it was a horrible decision now to shut down Strasburg. He's potentially cost the team and the fans a legitimate chance at a WS Championship. Link to post Share on other sites
Winston Legthigh Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Wholly Flock does Valverde suck. For the Tigers to win tonight, Verlander is going to have to pitch a complete game. My prediction is that Tigers bats go silent, Verlander pitches a gem, but they still lose 1-0. Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 I wonder how Mike Rizzo is feeling these days. It was a horrible decision several weeks ago and it's blatantly apparent it was a horrible decision now to shut down Strasburg. He's potentially cost the team and the fans a legitimate chance at a WS Championship.for whatever it's worth he maintains that it was the right decision then and now, regardless of playoff outcome. you gotta at least respect that, right? personally i agreed with the shutdown. strasburg's last few starts before the shutdown weren't up to par, his velocity was considerably down, and it was a good idea to not push him. baseball is unfortunately littered with great arms that wore down too quick, and though you can never really prove for sure if this was a good idea, it's certainly not "blatantly horrible" either. it's grounded in putting a young player's long term health over an immediate championship, which i think is refreshing as hell. anyway, his absence isnt the reason the nats are on the verge of elimination. for one, the bats are doing nothing, and no pitcher in the game could win without any run support at all. second, gio and jordan zimmermann were just as good as strasburg during the regular season, and they both got rocked in their first postseason starts. its very likely the same would have happened to strasburg. playoff baseball's a crazy thing, and experience matters. the nats dont have it. as cheesy as it sounds, i really believe next year is when the nats will truly come into their own, and this year was just a bonus preview. this team is filled with players on the verge of extraordinary things, and it'll be exciting to see next years braves/nats fight for the pennant. it was nice to see them in the playoffs in the first place, and if they lose today that's 4 games experience to build on next year. its been a fun season Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 There's nothing grounded or refreshing about potentially sacrificing a WS championship, regardless of a specific player's long-term health. The whole point is to win championships. By shutting him down, he basically said "this is not our year" before the playoffs even started. Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 that seems to be the view of more people outside the nats fanbase than within. the shutdown is predominantly supported among folks in dc. if strasburg was their only talented pitcher or player, i'd think it was a terrible decision. but he wasnt. on another forum the same people saying rizzo's an idiot for shutting down strasburg are criticizing dusty baker and the cubs folks for overworking prior and wood. it's a lose lose situation i guess. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 Baker worked them trying to win a WS. They didn't get it done. that seems to be the view of more people outside the nats fanbase than within. It also happens to be the correct view. Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 and those players were never the same i'd rather have a guy like strasburg available for several ws runs. apparently mike rizzo agrees Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Jules Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 No guarantee there will be several runs. You had a potential run this year but gave it away. Link to post Share on other sites
Shakespeare In The Alley Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 and thats a risk i'm ok with. apparently mike rizzo agrees. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts