I'll defer to you on that hiway, sounds like he's been on fire and sparked the team as well... but I don't think they'll give it to him for only a partial year...
CC has been killer for the Brewers.. even though he's not an everyday player he has sparked that team... but he probably won't get either the MVP or the CY...
And although Edinson Volquez has been great in Cincy... it's more than likely going to go to Rocky and Simon's boy doncha think? Not many this year have been as strong and consistent as Webb has...
I'll defer to you on that hiway, sounds like he's been on fire and sparked the team as well... but I don't think they'll give it to him for only a partial year...
CC has been killer for the Brewers.. even though he's not an everyday player he has sparked that team... but he probably won't get either the MVP or the CY...
And although Edinson Volquez has been great in Cincy... it's more than likely going to go to Rocky and Simon's boy doncha think? Not many this year have been as strong and consistent as Webb has...
If he regroups and regains his composure to win another couple, it will be a lock.
Im not saying they'll win but its not inconceivable that they could finish in the top 3 or 4 for what theyve done for their teams.
I finally watched part of last nights game flickin through the channels.
I knew that Pedroia was hot, but at the beginning of the game they had him at .688 for the previous 5 or 6 games --That dropped when He "only" went 3-5 last night with a double and a HR---mustve been an off night.
I know that Manny won't get an mvp for 2 months work- I only meant that in the purest definition of 'most valuable player', he qualifies in my book.
It's like the argument whether Roger Maris belongs in the Hall of Fame. It's true he didn't put up the 'numbers', but people who don't know or care about 90% of the Hall, know Roger Maris and what he did. That's enough Fame-and for the right reasons-for me.
There are all sorts of arguments for MVP--some people go for the biggest numbers--I agree with "the most valuable" to their team component as being the real criteria..In the last few years around here Ortiz was left off some lists because he was a DH, Pedro Martinez missed in about 99-00 for being pitcher and one writer left him off the ballot totally.
To me it doesnt make a difference. If someone is "valuable" then they are "valuable" and they deserve to be considered--the writers who vote are an odd lot though--so you never really know.
If the Dodgers had all of a sudden skyrocketed when manny came aboard there might be a better chance for the writers to note it, and maybe he could finish in the middle of the pack somewhere--but as far as I know they are prob a little over .500, since then...so its a moot point and they wont look. valuable is valuable though
As far as the hall and Maris..I can see your point. Although he wouldnt be a traditional HOF'er if you took out 1961, That one year was more than momentous enough. Bill Mazeroski was a good player but nothing overtly outstanding (imo) he made it in largely on the back of not even a year but one at bat.
id put him in although he is sort of on the cusp..some others who arent in--like Ron Santo,who I remember as the NL thirdbaseman of that generation, totally baffles me
I dont understand why they continually overlook Santo--his numbers are actually better than Brooks Robinson, had 9 AllStar appearances, 5 Gold Gloves. His average was a little low (.277) but he played in a pitchers era ( Gibson, Koufax, Marichal, Drysdale, Seaver etc) and its still better than some other third basemen that are already enshrined.
I never know he was playing all those years with diabetes either.
Hopefully the Veterans Committee will vote him in soon
Thanks for that Youtube on Santo, mstar...At the end of his career, he didn't want to play for anyone else but the Cubs, but when they didn't want him any longer, he went to the crosstown White Sox so he could still be in Chicago...He is one of the most rabid home-town color-men in the radio booth...When the Cubs blow a game, he's been known to say, "Oh, man, am I gonna have a miserable night"...I hate to predict doom and gloom, but he almost looks like he'd drop dead as soon as (if) the Cubs ever won a World Series...If he doesn't get in the Hall while he's alive, he'll probably get in when he passes as sort of a lifetime achievement award, for his play on the field and his work in the radio booth and with diabetes...
Last year, in an ESPN.com chat session, I was asked which players not in the Hall of Fame were most worthy of induction. I threw out about six names, but other than Bert Blyleven and Ron Santo, I don't feel strongly about anyone.
Later this week, Michael Wolverton will make the case for Bert Blyleven, so I'm going to tackle Santo today. (Not literally; that would be mean.)
When Ron Santo retired, he was probably the second-best third baseman in the history of the game. We've had a bit of a golden age since then, with Mike Schmidt, George Brett and Wade Boggs, Hall of Famers all; but Santo, when he walked away after 1974, was behind only Eddie Mathews among the game's great third sackers.
The omission of Ron Santo is the most egregious mistake ever made by the Baseball Writers Association of America. They should have inducted Santo 20 years ago, and that they overlooked him throughout his 15 years on the ballot is a shame. I sincerely hope that the new Veterans Committee rights the error quickly. It will be a boon to their credibility and a honor for a man too long left outside the hallowed halls of Cooperstown.
Here's something else that's interesting: the list of players most comparable to Santo (available at baseball-reference.com) includes no Hall of Famers. That's not because he himself isn't worthy, but because a bunch of spots on that list are occupied by outfielders who didn't hit enough to be enshrined.
Santo's best comparison is Dale Murphy, who is a Hall of Fame candidate for what he did as a center fielder and right fielder. Santo has comparable career numbers to Murphy, but did his work as a Gold Glove third baseman in the greatest pitchers' era since the teens. Brian Downing, George Foster and Don Baylor, all lousy defensive outfielders or DHs, spent most of their careers in the middle of the lineup and put up career numbers comparable to Santo's. His other comps are third basemen who are inferior to him, but reasonable Hall candidates in their own right, guys like Graig Nettles and Ken Boyer.
Santo is unique in baseball history, a third baseman who hit like a left fielder while playing excellent defense at the hot corner.
Part of the reason Santo has been left out of the Hall of Fame is that the BBWAA has never quite figured out what to do with third basemen. They are historically underrepresented, and the change in the position over time has made it difficult to establish standards for what makes a Hall of Fame third baseman. Santo also lacked one signature skill on which to hang his case; he doesn't have 400 home runs or 3,000 hits or one major point his supporters could use to beat his candidacy home.
Actually, the biases Santo fights are more basic that that. Large parts of his value are hidden in areas that the BBWAA hasn't done a good job of recognizing: defense and walks. Santo was the NL's Gold Glove winner at third base from 1964 through 1968, and led the league in bases on balls in four of those five years. He was among the league leaders in OBP and slugging throughout the 1960s, finishing in the top 10 in both categories in every season from 1964 through 1967.
He was a reasonable MVP candidate throughout this time, with his chances being hurt every year by the lousy Cubs team around him. You simply couldn't win an NL MVP on a bad team in the 1960s; every NL MVP winner in that decade played for a team that won at least 90 games. The Cubs won 90 games just once, in 1969, a season that for some reason isn't remembered on the North Side as their best performance of the decade. Because Santo never appeared in the postseason and rarely was a factor in a pennant race, he didn't have the visibility of other players. This hurt him, probably unfairly, with the voters.
So Santo was one of the top few players in his league for about six years, the second-best third baseman in the game's history upon his retirement, and put up numbers at a defensive position that would have made him a borderline Hall of Fame candidate at an offensive one. That is a Hall of Famer.
The omission of Ron Santo is the most egregious mistake ever made by the Baseball Writers Association of America. They should have inducted Santo 20 years ago, and that they overlooked him throughout his 15 years on the ballot is a shame. I sincerely hope that the new Veterans Committee rights the error quickly. It will be a boon to their credibility and a honor for a man too long left outside the hallowed halls of Cooperstown.
I went to the HOF website to see who was on the veterans committee figurin I could write em each a letter but I couldnt find out who was on it. If anyof you guys ever find out who to write lemme know--Id stand up for a stand up guy like Santo...
I got home early today and just happened to turn on the tube to find an afternoon game.. Sox down 4-0 in the 7th, score 4 in the 7th and 8th to tie it --and then walk off in the ninth.
I just might start to like this team again :)
3 More hits for Pedroia today
he's hitting .400 for the last 2 months.
I like the idea of having 'the midget' battin cleanup
Check how tiny he is in this picture--he's like 3 feet tall by the time he swings
Someone photoshopped this but this is basically what it really looks like when he is up at the plate
Well I finally got to see the clip of the play In sabathias game that Simon was talking about a few days back...I didnt realize that Sabathia had finished the game with a one -hitter
The clip is very good quality for discussing error vs. hit. It's a very open interpretation.
I think that if Sabathia fields that cleanly he makes the play. LaRoche was still about 2/3 of the way and would easily have been out on a good throw. That makes it an error.
On the other hand, even for a pitcher, Sabathia was incredibly slow hauling his big carcass off the mound to make that play and it would have been at least slightly close as a result. If Fielder had to go get that throw at first LaRoche might have been safe. If CC had a good jump on the ball he'd have himself a no-hitter because he wouldn't have had to rush the play in the first place.
I think someone appealed a scorers ruling earlier this year and actually won (it reduced someones ERA), but a no-hitter is such an "in the moment" thing, that it would be sort of odd from a fan standpoint to know that they saw a retroactive no hitter two weeks ago (or whenever the ruling comes down) when they thought that they hadn't.
I doubt that they'll change it--has anyone heard of any final ruling on the Brewers appeal yet?
That's possibly because official scorers generally give the pitcher -- from a fielding perspective -- the benefit of the doubt that it would be very difficult to make plays like that because of how they come off the mound on follow through after releasing the ball. If Greg Maddux was the standard, they'd have given CC the error, BUT... just like you can't assume a double play (and therefore errors are not generally given when the pivot man, be it the SS or 2nd baseman, bobbles instead of making a clean relay throw), you can't assume all pitchers field as well as Maddux.
Btw, Dbacks had another bottom of the 9th comeback win against the Cardinals today. It was VERY exciting. I'm glad I recorded the game... :)
Stephen (I hit for the cycle on Monday) Drew led off the bottom of the inning with a triple (on a magnificient at bat, going from 0-2 to 3-2 and fouling off several more pitches). Eckstein made an out, Conor Jackson singled scoring Drew with the tying run. Next batter -- Big Adam Dunn doubled scoring Jackson from first with only one out.
Big series this weekend with Hiway's Trolley Dodgers... starting Friday.
I'm pretty sure this has never happened, but I know of a rotten way for a no hitter to be spoiled. Just to make it even better, we'll go straight to the ninth. Batter walks, and the next batter hits a sharp grounder to second. The second baseman is ready to field the ball, but the ball hits the runner while he is going to second. The runner is out for interference, but by the baseball rules (see the scoring section), the batter is credited with a base hit.
Like I said, this would be rotten, wouldn't it? Of course, if this actually happened, I suppose the higher ups might rule differently, against the written rules but "in the spirit of the rules", as was done in the George Brett pine tar case years ago. Especially since the ruling would not affect the outcome of the game either way.
The same thing can happen if a fair batted ball hits an umpire. The main difference here is that nobody is out, but it would still stink. However, in the bigs this would be inlikely to happen because of an ump at each base. In lower echelons, when there is only the plate ump and one field ump, the field ump often has to position himself (or herself, yes, I've worked with female umps) well inside the baselines with runners on base because of potential plays at multiple points. And if a batted ball passes a fielder other than the pitcher, or is touched by any fielder, interference does not apply unless it is deemed intentional by the runner.
batter walks, and the next batter hits a sharp grounder to second. The second baseman is ready to field the ball, but the ball hits the runner while he is going to second. The runner is out for interference, but by the baseball rules (see the scoring section), the batter is credited with a base hit.
what a horror that would be!
in the bigs this would be inlikely to happen because of an ump at each base. In lower echelons, when there is only the plate ump and one field ump, the field ump often has to position himself (or herself, yes, I've worked with female umps) well inside the baselines with runners on base because of potential plays at multiple points.
Thats something Ive been curious about for years: Umpire positioning
I understand the situation when there are only two umps that there are all sorts of variables to cover, but even in the majors depending on the situation and how many men are on base, it is still not as simple as I would think it to be. The second base umps especially seem to reposition themselves and I am often surprised when I happen to notice an odd set up by field umps.
A good percentage of questionable or bad calls seem to come from when an umpire situates himself or finds himself at a less than optimum vantage point.
Im pretty sure it wouldnt be a haphazard thing or "personal preference' at least I would guess not.
Are you umps taught proper positioning and specific places to be in certain situations?
I'm pretty sure this has never happened, but I know of a rotten way for a no hitter to be spoiled. Just to make it even better, we'll go straight to the ninth. Batter walks, and the next batter hits a sharp grounder to second. The second baseman is ready to field the ball, but the ball hits the runner while he is going to second. The runner is out for interference, but by the baseball rules (see the scoring section), the batter is credited with a base hit.
Like I said, this would be rotten, wouldn't it? Of course, if this actually happened, I suppose the higher ups might rule differently, against the written rules but "in the spirit of the rules", as was done in the George Brett pine tar case years ago. Especially since the ruling would not affect the outcome of the game either way.
In such a scenario, the higher ups would probably say the runner was technically out for the 27th out before the batter was awarded his basehit...or other some such...'Course then, you'd have a no-hitter and a guy who was one outa four in the box score...
I agree with Rocky's assessment of the ruling on Sabbathia...You wouldn't have a three hundred pound shortstop or second baseman...Usually a pitcher only gets an error when he throws the ball away or fumbles it...In this case, he did drop the ball, so I probably would have immediately awarded an error, but it is too close to overrule a scorer's decision...Geez---what a headache for $145 a game...
Are you umps taught proper positioning and specific places to be in certain situations?
No kidding. At my level, I don't have too many consequences to suffer if I screw up; if I get enough games, I might make a grand and a half during a two month seaon. But still, we get the speal on the above. And, of course, any ump who has made it to the bigs (4 umps for a game) has had to go through many two ump games in a career.
Positioning is important to BE in the right place to make the call...not to be running to the right place to make it.
In such a scenario, the higher ups would probably say the runner was technically out for the 27th out before the batter was awarded his basehit...or other some such...'Course then, you'd have a no-hitter and a guy who was one outa four in the box score...
although if it happened with one out, they couldn't say that.
Hadn't thought of that Lifted...I think there is a pitcher or two who have thrown no-hitters that would have been perfectos were it not for a fielding error at some point in the game...But then again, the dynamics change when the pitcher knows in the 8th or 9th inning that he's working on a no-hitter, which hundreds of pitchers have acclomplished, as opposed to a perfect game, which only about 15 pitchers have accomplished..
I still think it was interesting that Sandy's perfect game in 1965 was almost a double no-hitter against the Cubs' Bob Hendley. The score was 1-0, the Dodgers got their run in the 5th inning, and their lone hit in the 7th.
Actually, after posting this, I realized that technically Hendley wouldn't have had a no-hitter because the Dodgers were the home team and, having a lead, did not bat in the 9th.
Simon told me a great story about that game once ---maybe he'll relay it.
At some point I'd like to find some more info on the Ernie Shore game in 1917.
Babe Ruth started the game, walked the first batter at which Ruth argued apparently even throwing punches at the ump..He was ejected..
Ernie Shore came into pitch --The runner was thrown out stealing and Shore retired the next 26 in a row.
He faced 26 and got 27 outs
Is that a perfect game?
in relief no less?
Yea, Simon, what about that game?
Good point for argument on the Shore pitching. It was, of course, a few years before my time (I only go back to watching the Dodgers in the Coliseum and the Angels at LA Wrigley.)
Good point for argument on the Shore pitching. It was, of course, a few years before my time (I only go back to watching the Dodgers in the Coliseum and the Angels at LA Wrigley.)
I think mstar is talking about when I told him my experience of meeting my first real-live Dodger fan...A fella in the corpse with me named Mike from LA...We somehow got to talking about baseball and he told me he was at Sandy Koufax's perfect game with his dad...And of course......he and his dad got up to leave in the seventh inning to beat traffic..I guess they felt with Koufax on the mound and a 1-0 lead, the game was well in hand...And they already got to see one hit and even one run, so what else is there to hang around for...
Is 1969 being relived?...Cubs have lost five in a row and are getting hammered by Cincy...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
858
673
1658
1014
Popular Days
Oct 24
38
Aug 12
34
Aug 18
31
Oct 22
29
Top Posters In This Topic
hiway29 858 posts
Rocky 673 posts
mstar1 1,658 posts
Tom Strange 1,014 posts
Popular Days
Oct 24 2007
38 posts
Aug 12 2008
34 posts
Aug 18 2008
31 posts
Oct 22 2006
29 posts
Popular Posts
kimberly
I missed the LLWS. The boy had baseball practice 4-7. Playing in a USSSA tournament this coming weekend. The new season has just started. Can ya'll believe we are in September of the ML baseball s
mstar1
Dont scare me like that Bolsh--the way you posted I wasnt sure if it was a done deal--I had to go check....Im on the fence whether to go for Halliday or not---I'd love to have him but I'd hate to give
hiway29
I love those fan trades where players you don't care about, plus a 'prospect', are offered up for a major player. Yeah, the Jays will jump at that deal.
Posted Images
Tom Strange
I'll defer to you on that hiway, sounds like he's been on fire and sparked the team as well... but I don't think they'll give it to him for only a partial year...
CC has been killer for the Brewers.. even though he's not an everyday player he has sparked that team... but he probably won't get either the MVP or the CY...
And although Edinson Volquez has been great in Cincy... it's more than likely going to go to Rocky and Simon's boy doncha think? Not many this year have been as strong and consistent as Webb has...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
If he regroups and regains his composure to win another couple, it will be a lock.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Im not saying they'll win but its not inconceivable that they could finish in the top 3 or 4 for what theyve done for their teams.
I finally watched part of last nights game flickin through the channels.
I knew that Pedroia was hot, but at the beginning of the game they had him at .688 for the previous 5 or 6 games --That dropped when He "only" went 3-5 last night with a double and a HR---mustve been an off night.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
I know that Manny won't get an mvp for 2 months work- I only meant that in the purest definition of 'most valuable player', he qualifies in my book.
It's like the argument whether Roger Maris belongs in the Hall of Fame. It's true he didn't put up the 'numbers', but people who don't know or care about 90% of the Hall, know Roger Maris and what he did. That's enough Fame-and for the right reasons-for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
There are all sorts of arguments for MVP--some people go for the biggest numbers--I agree with "the most valuable" to their team component as being the real criteria..In the last few years around here Ortiz was left off some lists because he was a DH, Pedro Martinez missed in about 99-00 for being pitcher and one writer left him off the ballot totally.
To me it doesnt make a difference. If someone is "valuable" then they are "valuable" and they deserve to be considered--the writers who vote are an odd lot though--so you never really know.
If the Dodgers had all of a sudden skyrocketed when manny came aboard there might be a better chance for the writers to note it, and maybe he could finish in the middle of the pack somewhere--but as far as I know they are prob a little over .500, since then...so its a moot point and they wont look. valuable is valuable though
As far as the hall and Maris..I can see your point. Although he wouldnt be a traditional HOF'er if you took out 1961, That one year was more than momentous enough. Bill Mazeroski was a good player but nothing overtly outstanding (imo) he made it in largely on the back of not even a year but one at bat.
id put him in although he is sort of on the cusp..some others who arent in--like Ron Santo,who I remember as the NL thirdbaseman of that generation, totally baffles me
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
hiway29
Maris also won back to back mvp's, by the way. He wasn't just good one year.
I'm also stumped by Ron Santo not being in.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
I dont understand why they continually overlook Santo--his numbers are actually better than Brooks Robinson, had 9 AllStar appearances, 5 Gold Gloves. His average was a little low (.277) but he played in a pitchers era ( Gibson, Koufax, Marichal, Drysdale, Seaver etc) and its still better than some other third basemen that are already enshrined.
I never know he was playing all those years with diabetes either.
Hopefully the Veterans Committee will vote him in soon
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
Thanks for that Youtube on Santo, mstar...At the end of his career, he didn't want to play for anyone else but the Cubs, but when they didn't want him any longer, he went to the crosstown White Sox so he could still be in Chicago...He is one of the most rabid home-town color-men in the radio booth...When the Cubs blow a game, he's been known to say, "Oh, man, am I gonna have a miserable night"...I hate to predict doom and gloom, but he almost looks like he'd drop dead as soon as (if) the Cubs ever won a World Series...If he doesn't get in the Hall while he's alive, he'll probably get in when he passes as sort of a lifetime achievement award, for his play on the field and his work in the radio booth and with diabetes...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Wednesday, July 24
Hall debates: Ron Santo
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Joe Sheehan
Special to ESPN.com
Last year, in an ESPN.com chat session, I was asked which players not in the Hall of Fame were most worthy of induction. I threw out about six names, but other than Bert Blyleven and Ron Santo, I don't feel strongly about anyone.
Later this week, Michael Wolverton will make the case for Bert Blyleven, so I'm going to tackle Santo today. (Not literally; that would be mean.)
When Ron Santo retired, he was probably the second-best third baseman in the history of the game. We've had a bit of a golden age since then, with Mike Schmidt, George Brett and Wade Boggs, Hall of Famers all; but Santo, when he walked away after 1974, was behind only Eddie Mathews among the game's great third sackers.
The omission of Ron Santo is the most egregious mistake ever made by the Baseball Writers Association of America. They should have inducted Santo 20 years ago, and that they overlooked him throughout his 15 years on the ballot is a shame. I sincerely hope that the new Veterans Committee rights the error quickly. It will be a boon to their credibility and a honor for a man too long left outside the hallowed halls of Cooperstown.
Here's something else that's interesting: the list of players most comparable to Santo (available at baseball-reference.com) includes no Hall of Famers. That's not because he himself isn't worthy, but because a bunch of spots on that list are occupied by outfielders who didn't hit enough to be enshrined.
Santo's best comparison is Dale Murphy, who is a Hall of Fame candidate for what he did as a center fielder and right fielder. Santo has comparable career numbers to Murphy, but did his work as a Gold Glove third baseman in the greatest pitchers' era since the teens. Brian Downing, George Foster and Don Baylor, all lousy defensive outfielders or DHs, spent most of their careers in the middle of the lineup and put up career numbers comparable to Santo's. His other comps are third basemen who are inferior to him, but reasonable Hall candidates in their own right, guys like Graig Nettles and Ken Boyer.
Santo is unique in baseball history, a third baseman who hit like a left fielder while playing excellent defense at the hot corner.
Part of the reason Santo has been left out of the Hall of Fame is that the BBWAA has never quite figured out what to do with third basemen. They are historically underrepresented, and the change in the position over time has made it difficult to establish standards for what makes a Hall of Fame third baseman. Santo also lacked one signature skill on which to hang his case; he doesn't have 400 home runs or 3,000 hits or one major point his supporters could use to beat his candidacy home.
Actually, the biases Santo fights are more basic that that. Large parts of his value are hidden in areas that the BBWAA hasn't done a good job of recognizing: defense and walks. Santo was the NL's Gold Glove winner at third base from 1964 through 1968, and led the league in bases on balls in four of those five years. He was among the league leaders in OBP and slugging throughout the 1960s, finishing in the top 10 in both categories in every season from 1964 through 1967.
He was a reasonable MVP candidate throughout this time, with his chances being hurt every year by the lousy Cubs team around him. You simply couldn't win an NL MVP on a bad team in the 1960s; every NL MVP winner in that decade played for a team that won at least 90 games. The Cubs won 90 games just once, in 1969, a season that for some reason isn't remembered on the North Side as their best performance of the decade. Because Santo never appeared in the postseason and rarely was a factor in a pennant race, he didn't have the visibility of other players. This hurt him, probably unfairly, with the voters.
Santo never had a monster season, in part because his era wouldn't allow for them. Yes, he played in Wrigley Field, which helped his numbers, but the game-wide dampening of offense kept him from having the signature years, the 40-homer, 120-RBI campaigns that Hall of Fame voters love to see on a resumé. He was never the best player in the league -- there was this guy named Mays who made that impossible -- but you can make a case for him as the second-best player in the NL during his peak.
So Santo was one of the top few players in his league for about six years, the second-best third baseman in the game's history upon his retirement, and put up numbers at a defensive position that would have made him a borderline Hall of Fame candidate at an offensive one. That is a Hall of Famer.
The omission of Ron Santo is the most egregious mistake ever made by the Baseball Writers Association of America. They should have inducted Santo 20 years ago, and that they overlooked him throughout his 15 years on the ballot is a shame. I sincerely hope that the new Veterans Committee rights the error quickly. It will be a boon to their credibility and a honor for a man too long left outside the hallowed halls of Cooperstown.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I've always been "high" on Santo... an injustice IMO... an outrage!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
I went to the HOF website to see who was on the veterans committee figurin I could write em each a letter but I couldnt find out who was on it. If anyof you guys ever find out who to write lemme know--Id stand up for a stand up guy like Santo...
I got home early today and just happened to turn on the tube to find an afternoon game.. Sox down 4-0 in the 7th, score 4 in the 7th and 8th to tie it --and then walk off in the ninth.
I just might start to like this team again :)
3 More hits for Pedroia today
he's hitting .400 for the last 2 months.
I like the idea of having 'the midget' battin cleanup
Check how tiny he is in this picture--he's like 3 feet tall by the time he swings
Someone photoshopped this but this is basically what it really looks like when he is up at the plate
Little Man--Big bat
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?mid=200808313397707
Well I finally got to see the clip of the play In sabathias game that Simon was talking about a few days back...I didnt realize that Sabathia had finished the game with a one -hitter
The clip is very good quality for discussing error vs. hit. It's a very open interpretation.
I think that if Sabathia fields that cleanly he makes the play. LaRoche was still about 2/3 of the way and would easily have been out on a good throw. That makes it an error.
On the other hand, even for a pitcher, Sabathia was incredibly slow hauling his big carcass off the mound to make that play and it would have been at least slightly close as a result. If Fielder had to go get that throw at first LaRoche might have been safe. If CC had a good jump on the ball he'd have himself a no-hitter because he wouldn't have had to rush the play in the first place.
I think someone appealed a scorers ruling earlier this year and actually won (it reduced someones ERA), but a no-hitter is such an "in the moment" thing, that it would be sort of odd from a fan standpoint to know that they saw a retroactive no hitter two weeks ago (or whenever the ruling comes down) when they thought that they hadn't.
I doubt that they'll change it--has anyone heard of any final ruling on the Brewers appeal yet?
Edit:
I went and found it--
RULING
Nope--No change
No no-no for C.C.
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
That's possibly because official scorers generally give the pitcher -- from a fielding perspective -- the benefit of the doubt that it would be very difficult to make plays like that because of how they come off the mound on follow through after releasing the ball. If Greg Maddux was the standard, they'd have given CC the error, BUT... just like you can't assume a double play (and therefore errors are not generally given when the pivot man, be it the SS or 2nd baseman, bobbles instead of making a clean relay throw), you can't assume all pitchers field as well as Maddux.
Btw, Dbacks had another bottom of the 9th comeback win against the Cardinals today. It was VERY exciting. I'm glad I recorded the game... :)
Stephen (I hit for the cycle on Monday) Drew led off the bottom of the inning with a triple (on a magnificient at bat, going from 0-2 to 3-2 and fouling off several more pitches). Eckstein made an out, Conor Jackson singled scoring Drew with the tying run. Next batter -- Big Adam Dunn doubled scoring Jackson from first with only one out.
Big series this weekend with Hiway's Trolley Dodgers... starting Friday.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I'm pretty sure this has never happened, but I know of a rotten way for a no hitter to be spoiled. Just to make it even better, we'll go straight to the ninth. Batter walks, and the next batter hits a sharp grounder to second. The second baseman is ready to field the ball, but the ball hits the runner while he is going to second. The runner is out for interference, but by the baseball rules (see the scoring section), the batter is credited with a base hit.
Like I said, this would be rotten, wouldn't it? Of course, if this actually happened, I suppose the higher ups might rule differently, against the written rules but "in the spirit of the rules", as was done in the George Brett pine tar case years ago. Especially since the ruling would not affect the outcome of the game either way.
The same thing can happen if a fair batted ball hits an umpire. The main difference here is that nobody is out, but it would still stink. However, in the bigs this would be inlikely to happen because of an ump at each base. In lower echelons, when there is only the plate ump and one field ump, the field ump often has to position himself (or herself, yes, I've worked with female umps) well inside the baselines with runners on base because of potential plays at multiple points. And if a batted ball passes a fielder other than the pitcher, or is touched by any fielder, interference does not apply unless it is deemed intentional by the runner.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Thats something Ive been curious about for years: Umpire positioning
I understand the situation when there are only two umps that there are all sorts of variables to cover, but even in the majors depending on the situation and how many men are on base, it is still not as simple as I would think it to be. The second base umps especially seem to reposition themselves and I am often surprised when I happen to notice an odd set up by field umps.
A good percentage of questionable or bad calls seem to come from when an umpire situates himself or finds himself at a less than optimum vantage point.
Im pretty sure it wouldnt be a haphazard thing or "personal preference' at least I would guess not.
Are you umps taught proper positioning and specific places to be in certain situations?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
In such a scenario, the higher ups would probably say the runner was technically out for the 27th out before the batter was awarded his basehit...or other some such...'Course then, you'd have a no-hitter and a guy who was one outa four in the box score...
I agree with Rocky's assessment of the ruling on Sabbathia...You wouldn't have a three hundred pound shortstop or second baseman...Usually a pitcher only gets an error when he throws the ball away or fumbles it...In this case, he did drop the ball, so I probably would have immediately awarded an error, but it is too close to overrule a scorer's decision...Geez---what a headache for $145 a game...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
No kidding. At my level, I don't have too many consequences to suffer if I screw up; if I get enough games, I might make a grand and a half during a two month seaon. But still, we get the speal on the above. And, of course, any ump who has made it to the bigs (4 umps for a game) has had to go through many two ump games in a career.
Positioning is important to BE in the right place to make the call...not to be running to the right place to make it.
although if it happened with one out, they couldn't say that.
Edited by Lifted UpLink to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
Hadn't thought of that Lifted...I think there is a pitcher or two who have thrown no-hitters that would have been perfectos were it not for a fielding error at some point in the game...But then again, the dynamics change when the pitcher knows in the 8th or 9th inning that he's working on a no-hitter, which hundreds of pitchers have acclomplished, as opposed to a perfect game, which only about 15 pitchers have accomplished..
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tom Strange
I don't want to throw anyone here into cardiac arrest... but... the stRangers beat Seattle yesterday 1-0.
That's the first time they've won a 1-0 ballgame at home since 2000.
That's the second time this year that Teagarden has gotten the start behind the plate... the result of both games? 1-0 wins. hmmm
I hope nobody needed the paddles...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
I still think it was interesting that Sandy's perfect game in 1965 was almost a double no-hitter against the Cubs' Bob Hendley. The score was 1-0, the Dodgers got their run in the 5th inning, and their lone hit in the 7th.
Actually, after posting this, I realized that technically Hendley wouldn't have had a no-hitter because the Dodgers were the home team and, having a lead, did not bat in the 9th.
Edited by Lifted UpLink to comment
Share on other sites
mstar1
Simon told me a great story about that game once ---maybe he'll relay it.
At some point I'd like to find some more info on the Ernie Shore game in 1917.
Babe Ruth started the game, walked the first batter at which Ruth argued apparently even throwing punches at the ump..He was ejected..
Ernie Shore came into pitch --The runner was thrown out stealing and Shore retired the next 26 in a row.
He faced 26 and got 27 outs
Is that a perfect game?
in relief no less?
Edited by mstar1Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lifted Up
Yea, Simon, what about that game?
Good point for argument on the Shore pitching. It was, of course, a few years before my time (I only go back to watching the Dodgers in the Coliseum and the Angels at LA Wrigley.)
Edited by Lifted UpLink to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Pardon me while I grumble (and complain)...
Dbacks at the Dodgers tonight, on ESPN in HD.
However, that game is NOT available on ESPN in MY area.
Hence, I'm left to endure it on Fox Sports Net, LOW definition. And FSNs LOW definition SUCKS.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
simonzelotes
I think mstar is talking about when I told him my experience of meeting my first real-live Dodger fan...A fella in the corpse with me named Mike from LA...We somehow got to talking about baseball and he told me he was at Sandy Koufax's perfect game with his dad...And of course......he and his dad got up to leave in the seventh inning to beat traffic..I guess they felt with Koufax on the mound and a 1-0 lead, the game was well in hand...And they already got to see one hit and even one run, so what else is there to hang around for...
Is 1969 being relived?...Cubs have lost five in a row and are getting hammered by Cincy...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.