|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 199 OF 914 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Jul-20-10 | | A.G. Argent: Always scary, that. And always amazing that they're usually Ok.
And speaking of amazing (sorry), here's one of the main reasons why he's considered the best catcher in baseball. Look at this whip, exactly at the bag where Werth's hand is headed -
http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/vi...
And I loved the quick side-long glance he shot towards 1st as he headed to the dug-out. |
|
| Jul-20-10 | | Jim Bartle: That throw wasn't only strong, but had it been a foot or two higher or wider it would have been too late. It wasn't as if Werth had some huge lead. Amazing. |
|
| Jul-20-10 | | Jim Bartle: Prediction: Lincecum made a pitch tonight which will be on blooper roles for a long time. |
|
Jul-21-10
 | | Phony Benoni: Oh, you mean this one?
http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/... I've heard of 55-foot curve balls, but not 55 feet straight up. |
|
| Jul-21-10 | | Jim Bartle: That's the one! He was lucky nobody was on base, especially third. But that was just the start of a strange game last night, and not only because the Giants came back from 5-1 down to beat LA. First Lincecum threw at Kemp two pitches in a row, hit him with the second. Warnings. Kershaw thrown out for throwing at a Giant. Torre thrown out, later bench coach thrown out after another beanball. Then in the 9th, acting manager Don Mattingly (a noted screwup, as we all know) goes out to talk strategy to Broxton, walks off the mound, then walks back to tell him something else. Bochy charges out of the dugout, says Mattingly has made two trips to the mound according to the rules, so Broxton has to come out. Umps agree, Broxton out, Dodgers have to bring in a pitcher with no warmup. Second pitch, two run double. Giants win. I thought the rule was crossing the foul line, but turns out it's walking off the dirt of the mound. |
|
| Jul-21-10 | | A.G. Argent: An unintentional eephus pitch. Didn't Nolan Ryan throw an eephus pitch once? It's legal and can be called a strike like in slow-pitch softball. And I sure ain't no Dodger lover but that rule about visiting the mound should be looked at. Mattingly was maybe two, three steps off it when he turned around but a rule is a rule, I imagine all managers know of it but you're right, Jim, the baseline would make more sense as the boundary. |
|
| Jul-21-10 | | Jim Bartle: Bochy definitely charged out to demand Broxton be removed. What I'm not clear on is whether the umps were going to do it on their own. My question is, was Bochy being a jerk by calling attention to something so miniscule and inconsequential? I'm not sure. |
|
Jul-21-10
| | Phony Benoni: Ask George Brett about pine tar some day. Preferably on the phone. From a neutral country. I think the rule is more at fault than Bochy here. The reason for the rule is obviously to prevent a manager from stalling while the bullpen is warming up. While that was certainly not the case here, the rule still applies, and Mattingly should have known it. Yet, stopping a few feet for the mound for a couple of seconds hardly constitutes stalling, and considering the situation I think the umps would have let it go had Bochy not forced their hand. Enforcing the letter of the law can be troubling in any sport, chess included. I think the general feeling, especially among strong players, is that consistently enforcing rules leads to fewer arguments in the long run. That being said, there always seems to be a bit of wiggle room, and nobody likes a person who goes around looking for rules to enforce. Just to make this post too long, I'll recount the story of a chess player whose name I don't remember but whom we'll call Mr. Bochy. At one of the US Opens in the 1950s, GMs Reshevsky and Rossolimo were battling for first place. The big prize that year was a new car. Since that could not be divided, tiebreaks would be used if necessary to award the prize. Mr. Bochy won a game during the tournament, but later learned his opponent had been cheating during the game. He was so incensed that he demanded to be awarded a win on forfeit instead. This being in the days before ratings, nobody really cared and his wish was granted. Now, when calculating tiebreaks, an adjusted score is used in which a win on forfeit counts less than a win over the board. (The idea of most tiebreak system is to determine which player had the strongest opposition, based on their results in the tournament.) Mr. Bochy had played Reshevsky. Because his adjusted score was lower this his actual score in the tournament, this lowered Reshevsky's tiebreaks must enough for Rossolimo to win the car instead. And since Rossolimo was a taxi driver, this was probably best anyway. |
|
| Jul-21-10 | | Jim Bartle: Just to be clear, nobody was warming up in the bullpen. The Dodgers' closer Broxton was pitching, I believe with the bases loaded. I'd cut Mattingly some slack, as he's actually not the manager, had just taken over because Torre (and the bench coach as well?) had been ejected. How was that player cheating back before computers? Did he go away from the board and look at a book or notes? |
|
Jul-21-10
| | Phony Benoni: Bochy might have cut him some slack in a different situation, say the score was 12-2 or something. But that's why the Pine Tar Incident came to mind. Billy Martin knew about Brett's bat long before that happened, but was waiting for the right moment. I don't recall all the details of the cheating incident, but I seem to remember the guy had been analzing the position away from the board. Still, I don't feel that sorry for Reshevsky; it was just part of the karmic payback for his incident with Denker. (If yo don't know that story, look here: Reshevsky vs Denker, 1942) |
|
| Jul-21-10 | | Jim Bartle: If Martin was waiting for the right moment to call Brett on his bat (as Graig Nettles wrote in his book, they'd noticed it at the start of the game), he didn't read the rule book correctly. The rule book states the umpire must eject a bat which has pine tar too high. It does not say the opposition can claim the bat is illegal after it's used for hitting. Speaking of odd rules, I bet the "fourth out" rule will cause a mess in an important game sometime in the next ten years. It happened once, in a regular game which wasn't close, maybe around 1990. Runners on first and third, runners going, bunt popped up, runner doubled off at first, runner on third just crosses home plate. The run counts if the team in the field doesn't appeal. Serious controversy potential. |
|
Jul-21-10
| | Phony Benoni: <JB> Ah, that brought back pleasant memories of the well-tattered book, <Knotty Problems of Baseball>, issued annually by the Sporting News. The edition I remembered best used the names of real players in the made-up situations, and had illustrations by Willard Mullin. Wish I hadn't read it so much now. It did have a "fourth out" situation, but these days Wikipedia explains it very well. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth...
Here's the game mentioned by Wikipedia:
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/... (Dodgers 2nd) And here's the one you might have been thinking of:
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/... (Yankees 8th) Wouldn't you just love to see this in game 7 of the World Series? I'm sure 99% of players (and quite a few umpires) would get it wrong, but Derek Jeter might be one who would know what to do. OK, probably Bruce Bochy too. |
|
| Jul-21-10 | | Jim Bartle: I'll bet Earl Weaver knew every single rule in the book. In the 50s and 60s the Sporting News put out all sorts of small format paperbacks like "Knotty Problems." (Knotty Problems may have been the one which appeared each week in the Saturday Evening Post.) All sorts of statistical books as well. I used to inhale the NBA stat book at the beginning of every season; I wish I still had those books. The Sporting News used to be so amazing in the pre-internet days, with every major league box score, all the stats, and the minor league stats as well. It was also the only national publication which covered the ABA in the 70s, so I knew a little about the players when they came into the NBA in 76. The writing was usually pretty weak, though. Is it even published any more? |
|
Jul-21-10
| | Phony Benoni: Around since 1886, and still going more or less strong. It's a biweekly these days, though: http://www.sportingnews.com/
Unless you prefer the daily digital edition, for about $3 per month. https://www.zinio.com/checkout/publ... Oh, I see that Ralph Houk has died. I may have to bookmark this site. |
|
| Jul-21-10 | | Jim Bartle: I'll bet Tony LaRussa spends some nights poring over the rule book as well, looking for some tiny advantage. OK, here's a question for PB and historian types: What's the biggest rule controversy in World Series history? Merkle's boner? Mike Andrews' "injury"? Ed Armbrister's bunt (though that's more a judgment call)? I don't really know enough to say. |
|
Jul-21-10
| | Phony Benoni: Rules controversy? That's tough. You can eliminate Merkle's boner; that was during the regular season. But most of the controversial calls I can remember offhand were also judgment calls. Maybe the Nippy Jones Shoe Polish Incident:
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/... In the Braves 10th, Jones was pinch-hitting when the notoriously wild Byrne threw a ball at his feet. Jones tried to skip out of the way, but claimed the ball had hit his foot. The umpire said no at first, but gave Jones first base when shoe polish was found on the ball. |
|
| Jul-21-10 | | Jim Bartle: Oops, we'll call that Bartle's Blunder, then.
Not specifically an in-game controversy, but I thought Charlie Finley "injuring" Mike Andrews in 1973 after a couple of errors was pretty bad. I'm surprised there wasn't some play involve the use of the DH in the early years which led to some problems. I like that they gave up the one-year-yes, one-year-no policy, and decided to go with the DH in AL parks only. I think that was institututed partly because Card manager Whitey Herzog couldn't stand to see Royals DH Hal McRae sitting on the bench every game during the 85 series. Hey, and here's a rules question I bet is not in the book: How late can a batter swing and still have it count as a strike? With two strikes and a wild pitch a batter may try to swing after the ball gets past the catcher. Legal or not? |
|
Jul-22-10
| | Phony Benoni: Hmmm. Of course the batter can swing after the ball goes past him. Good fastball pitchers get that all the time. But doing so after a wild pitch has eluded the catcher could constitute an unfair advantage, so it's probably prohibited. Maybe there's some clause about starting a swing after the umpire has called "ball" or "strike". |
|
| Jul-22-10 | | A.G. Argent: Talk about bat speed, (Who was? Weren't you guys?), this is a rather blindingly quick get-around on a fast ball;
http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/vi...
Even in slow motion it's hard to keep up with. |
|
| Jul-23-10 | | Deus Ex Alekhina: I miss Marge Schott. |
|
Jul-23-10
 | | WannaBe: I miss Bill and Mike Veek. |
|
Jul-23-10
| | Phony Benoni: I miss everybody. Lousy aim. |
|
| Jul-23-10 | | Jim Bartle: Jason Bay hits the bullpen gate hard after making a running catch, stays down. Maybe it really was better the gate opened on that play the other day. Looks like his face hit the door handle. (Mets vs. LA.) |
|
Jul-24-10
| | Phony Benoni: http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/video/p... Looked bad, but he stayed in the game and later hit a 3-run double that clinched the win for the Mets. |
|
| Jul-24-10 | | Jim Bartle: I missed the end of the game, but Bay also crashed into the stands trying to catch a foul pop. He was grinning after that one. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 199 OF 914 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
