SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
10/26 Red Sox vs. Cardinals World Series Game 3 Thread
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 27, 2013 13:26:30 GMT -5
Here's another issue with that rule - you're allowing human beings to determine in real time whether Craig would have scored without the obstruction (and they don't have the help of technology, either). What other sport does that? In the NFL, you don't give a team a touchdown because, if not for a defensive hold, he would have scored. And in basketball, you don't automatically get two points when you're fouled shooting a jumper. The point is that no other sport allows refs to make assumptions ... and for good reason. I know it's hard to make these comparisons between sports, but it's absurd that the MLB leaves these cause-effect assumptions in the hands of the umpires. These clowns can't even call a consisten strike zone, yet they're supposed to determine within seconds what would have happened. It's absurd. The difficulty is that there isn't an applicable penalty for baseball like the other sports (yards in the NFL, free throws in basketball, etc.), but I still have an issue with automatically awarding a guy home plate on a play he may or may not have scored on (in fairness, he probably would've scored, but we can't know for sure). Maybe instead you send him back to 3rd, or you allow the umps to use video to make a better determination, whatever. But something needs to change with that rule. A very fair point. I disagree with none of this. My response would have been exactly what you point out at the end. There are problems with the alternatives too though - if you're going to send the runner back to the base he's coming from, then you're creating a clear incentive to obstruct runners who are going to advance safely. I'm also not sure video would be helpful either on the close plays. I think the point is more not to reward someone who'd have been thrown out by a mile (the response that some have had that the rule gives you an incentive to seek out a fielder and run into him).
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 27, 2013 13:31:25 GMT -5
I am not sure they "lied" but I accepted the call more before I saw that press conference. That whole thing just came off as dirty and having Torre stumble through things didnt help. Maybe thats why they try to avoid having umps available to the press. The issue that concerns me the most is the overall performance by the umpires this entire playoffs. Maybe K-zone and super slow -mo just makes it easier for the common viewer to see the mistakes but it appears the selection process for these crews needs to be looked at. I couldnt have been merit based. That may just be the way Joyce stamped it into his memory. Given the... extremely extensive... overview of the rule by Chris up above, Joyce probably had at least an arguable case for ending the game. It was a judgement call and he made his judgement. Some of us may not agree with his decision to do that, but he's the umpire. That said, he probably should have stopped right there without the chalk stuff. That bullshit just adds fuel to the media fire. In fact, given Chris's reading of the rule, the actual baseline is irrelevant. It comes down to Craig's reaction to the ball, his movement in Middlebrooks' direction without doing much looking, and the latter having put his legs up - for whatever reason. Probably didn't hurt his case that he's somewhat lame and tripping was an easy thing to do. I really dislike having a game end like this. It immediately shifts the focus from the actual play to arcane rules and their interpretation. It just deflates everything - instantly. But it happens. In baseball it happens a lot. On to the next game. Yeah Joyce did not help himself at all. I thought Torre and Hirschbeck were convincing, but Joyce sounded like a buffoon which didn't help things at all. And I think you get to the key here: what sucks is that the game ended on the play... but that said, even as far as swallowing the whistle goes, we wouldn't even have cared as much if it had occurred an inning before. And that's kind of the issue. Should the ninth inning of a playoff baseball game be played with different rules because we don't want the game to end on an umpire awarding a base? By the way, wasn't there a playoff game that ended on a balk a few years back? Or at least a key regular season game? EDIT: Wait, thought of it. It was a CWS game and the problem was that it as the tickiest of ticky-tack garbage balks that would've been a bad call even earlier in the game.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Oct 27, 2013 13:35:39 GMT -5
I'm still so stunned we lost that game.
Would've been 4-4 with the heart of our order coming up, with a good amount of the Card's pen burned.
These two losses to the cards have been absolutely brutal.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 27, 2013 13:38:28 GMT -5
What good is Quinton Berry with Molina out there catching? He obviates the efficacy of Berry even being on the roster. I'm not sending Berry in almost any situation. We would have been better off with JBJ or another reliever.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Oct 27, 2013 13:42:53 GMT -5
What good is Quinton Berry with Molina out there catching? He obviates the efficacy of Berry even being on the roster. I'm not sending Berry in almost any situation. We would have been better off with JBJ or another reliever. Because if we absolutely need a steal he's our guy. Chances are still very good he would get it, even with Molina behind the plate. I also wouldn't mind seeing home out there in left if we have a lead we're clinging to... Would rather not see Gomes or even Nava out there. I can see your argument for JBJ but honestly I would've liked to see us go with Britton over Morales anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 27, 2013 14:06:14 GMT -5
What good is Quinton Berry with Molina out there catching? He obviates the efficacy of Berry even being on the roster. I'm not sending Berry in almost any situation. We would have been better off with JBJ or another reliever. Because if we absolutely need a steal he's our guy. Chances are still very good he would get it, even with Molina behind the plate. I also wouldn't mind seeing home out there in left if we have a lead we're clinging to... Would rather not see Gomes or even Nava out there. I can see your argument for JBJ but honestly I would've liked to see us go with Britton over Morales anyway. Ability to score from second on a single, or from first on a double. Especially in an NL park with, say, Ortiz on first and Napoli available to come in behind him, or one of the catchers. That said, it's unreal how much respect they're giving Yadi. I get that he caught 43% of attempted basestealers, but I'm stunned not even Ellsbury has given him a try.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 27, 2013 14:12:29 GMT -5
Yeah. he has shut down one of the few ways boston had a chance to score at St Louis with several embers of the team in massive K streaks. i think Ells needs to be more aggressive and forget his impending FA stats. Victorino would like to see run some also, or hit and run with Ells on if it will force Ells to get going.
It's time for Salty to hit the bench also. Can see Drew playing to some extent. Farrell makes a fair point on his defense. Salty, with his play makes a good point as to why the team needed 3 catchers and Lavarnway was the other.
|
|
|
Post by templeusox on Oct 27, 2013 14:21:35 GMT -5
I disagree with those questioning Farrell's strategy in the 9th inning. I'm sorry, Rosenthal is mowing through the Sox hitters and he would have blown away Napoli on 3 pitches if he pinch-hit in that inning. The strategy there is to try to get through Rosenthal and win it in the 10th inning or beyond. Yes, it's a risk, but it's the best chance of winning.
In the bottom of the inning, you have to try to steal outs with Workman and it almost worked. Uehara was brought in with a runner on 1st and one out as opposed to no one on and bases empty. You know the run expectancy difference there? With the former it's around .47 and with the latter it's .49. It's a marginal difference and one that certainly justifies the risk. And of course, everyone ignores the fact that Uehara is the pitcher who gave up the rope double as opposed to Workman's bloop single.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Oct 27, 2013 14:22:00 GMT -5
The other thing is, that wasn't the only bad call that game.
The home plate ump was awful all night long. Such a shame to have such shoddy officiating in the World Series. Its like Ángel Hernández is out there for pete's sake.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 27, 2013 14:22:13 GMT -5
When that steal percentage drops to under 75% it becomes less and less warranted to attempt. I know Berry has a good steal percentage but he is extremely cautious also and so far has just barely been able to pull off the steals he has made with us. And the ability to hold runners on at least by the St. Louis starters is apparently good according to reports, and there is no question about Molina's ability. Regarding the ability to score from 2nd and such, we lose some pinch hitting ability and some defensive ability in a spacious OF in St. Louis with no JBJ. He can score from 2nd fairly well. I think it was a mistake bringing Berry.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 27, 2013 14:31:56 GMT -5
I've been traveling a lot and missed almost all of the last couple of games, but after reviewing everything today, I really can't get over the feeling that this is almost exactly like the Tuck Rule that benefitted the Patriots ... and since I told Raiders fans that they should just buck up and take it then, I gotta do the same here. It really does seem like the correct interpretation of a pretty bogus rule.
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Oct 27, 2013 14:32:23 GMT -5
When that steal percentage drops to under 75% it becomes less and less warranted to attempt. I know Berry has a good steal percentage but he is extremely cautious also and so far has just barely been able to pull off the steals he has made with us. And the ability to hold runners on at least by the St. Louis starters is apparently good according to reports, and there is no question about Molina's ability. Regarding the ability to score from 2nd and such, we lose some pinch hitting ability and some defensive ability in a spacious OF in St. Louis with no JBJ. He can score from 2nd fairly well. I think it was a mistake bringing Berry. I think you may be right now that you mention it. Bradley isn't slow by any means. Hopefully we can rally back from this. I'd still feel pretty good about this series if we win tonight.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 27, 2013 14:37:32 GMT -5
I disagree with those questioning Farrell's strategy in the 9th inning. I'm sorry, Rosenthal is mowing through the Sox hitters and he would have blown away Napoli on 3 pitches if he pinch-hit in that inning. The strategy there is to try to get through Rosenthal and win it in the 10th inning or beyond. Yes, it's a risk, but it's the best chance of winning. In the bottom of the inning, you have to try to steal outs with Workman and it almost worked. Uehara was brought in with a runner on 1st and one out as opposed to no one on and bases empty. You know the run expectancy difference there? With the former it's around .47 and with the latter it's .49. It's a marginal difference and one that certainly justifies the risk. And of course, everyone ignores the fact that Uehara is the pitcher who gave up the rope double as opposed to Workman's bloop single. Not bringing in Napoli is a risk (it likely means your third best hitter doesn't bat in the game) but a fair one to squeeze a couple more hitters out of Workman. But not double-switching with Ross is pretty inexcusable, and even Farrell admits that there were pretty few downsides to doing so.
|
|
|
Post by burythehammer on Oct 27, 2013 15:58:11 GMT -5
At the end of the day I am far more upset at the ineptitude of Salty and WMB, particularly the former. Never should have come down to that. If Salty just holds on to it, probably an 85% chance we get to the 10 inning.
|
|
|
Post by p23w on Oct 27, 2013 16:07:19 GMT -5
Bad call. Craig clearly pushes down on Middlebrooks effectively keeping Will from rolling out of Craig's intended path. After "pinning" Middlebrooks on the ground Craig then heads for home. Craig's first step with his left foot is on the infield grass. IMO Craig caused the interference by taking an illegal path to his destination. Middlebrooks was in line with 2B, not home.
P.S. I'm not an umpire. I was a league commissioner for 9 years.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,842
|
Post by wcp3 on Oct 27, 2013 16:08:38 GMT -5
Here's another issue with that rule - you're allowing human beings to determine in real time whether Craig would have scored without the obstruction (and they don't have the help of technology, either). What other sport does that? In the NFL, you don't give a team a touchdown because, if not for a defensive hold, he would have scored. And in basketball, you don't automatically get two points when you're fouled shooting a jumper. The point is that no other sport allows refs to make assumptions ... and for good reason. I know it's hard to make these comparisons between sports, but it's absurd that the MLB leaves these cause-effect assumptions in the hands of the umpires. These clowns can't even call a consisten strike zone, yet they're supposed to determine within seconds what would have happened. It's absurd. The difficulty is that there isn't an applicable penalty for baseball like the other sports (yards in the NFL, free throws in basketball, etc.), but I still have an issue with automatically awarding a guy home plate on a play he may or may not have scored on (in fairness, he probably would've scored, but we can't know for sure). Maybe instead you send him back to 3rd, or you allow the umps to use video to make a better determination, whatever. But something needs to change with that rule. A very fair point. I disagree with none of this. My response would have been exactly what you point out at the end. There are problems with the alternatives too though - if you're going to send the runner back to the base he's coming from, then you're creating a clear incentive to obstruct runners who are going to advance safely. I'm also not sure video would be helpful either on the close plays. I think the point is more not to reward someone who'd have been thrown out by a mile (the response that some have had that the rule gives you an incentive to seek out a fielder and run into him). Definitely a fair point. But isn't that the same thing as basically tackling a receiver to prevent him from scoring a touchdown? Again, I absolutely hate making comparisons between sports, but I just can't get past the fact that baseball is the only sport that automatically grants a team a score. That's needs to change.
|
|
|
Post by johnsilver52 on Oct 27, 2013 17:39:53 GMT -5
You think his lousy overall defense and throwing that has been underlined and highlighted in the post season has been noticed a little bit more by his cheer leaders that have been clamoring for some unwordly extension to this over hyped guy?
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 27, 2013 17:58:25 GMT -5
With Victorino out, which was always a possibility, it was even more reason to use JBJ rather than Berry on the WS roster. Our OF defense is now suspect on a field where it is important for the next 2 games.
|
|
|