Day One sees St. Louis hammer Odalis Perez and the Dodgers 8-3. Boston uncorks a 7-run 4th inning to beat the Angels. Johan Santana and Torii Hunter more or less defeat the Yankees. Houston goes tomorrow.
Questions:
Does LA stand a chance?
Torre using Rivera for an inning tonight: Good idea? Does it even matter?
Sox/Angels: if Pedro wins tomorrow, I have to think it's over (knock on wood).
I'm not sure I see a lot of predictive value in today's games. Santana wasn't a sure thing, but he was close. If NY beat him, I'd have been worried for the Twins chances. That being said, Mussina was the Yankees best chance as well. A lot rides on Leiber tomorrow. Similarly, I think a Pedro victory tomorrow sets the Sox up beautifully.
Torre using Rivera for an inning tonight: Good idea? Does it even matter?
I don't think it even matters. Santana wasn't very good and the Twins still got a shutout. There were several times when I thought "These are situations that the Yankees take advantage of" and they didn't.
And, Torii Hunter is a freaking STUD.
Sox/Angels: if Pedro wins tomorrow, I have to think it's over (knock on wood).
More than likely. I don't know that there's anybody who has enough pitching to stop the Red Sox three out of five or four out of seven. They're just relentless.
With where both teams are at right now, Anaheim just does not match up well against Boston on paper, and it played out today. Anaheim can hit, but Boston can hit with them, and the Sox have far superior starting pitching. So I thought (and still think) Boston cruises.
Twins are going to have it rough winning two in Yankee Stadium, but Jon Lieber? These are not champion Yankees. If they DO sweep the first two in NY, the series will be over.
"Does LA stand a chance?"
Dodgers can still beat the Cardinals, but it's all about how St. Louis' starters perform. If they continue to hit and the pitchers pitch, they're going to be pretty unbeatable. The middle of their order is just deadly.
"Torre using Rivera for an inning tonight: Good idea? Does it even matter?"
Well it puts equal work on Gordon and Rivera and keeps the game tight. Giving Gordon another inning might take him out for tomorrow. Now both will be available and they had a chance in the ninth. Don't think it'll matter.
Originally posted by CrimedogRon Gardenhire not having someone ready to go when he sent Joe Nathan out for his third inning Wednesday night: Unquestionably a bad move
Unspeakable bad. I know Nathan used to go three innings from time to time, but he is your closer and has been used to 1 or 2 innings tops. The problem becomes whether or not he is going to be too fatigued to pitch effectively in game 3.
Originally posted by CrimedogRon Gardenhire not having someone ready to go when he sent Joe Nathan out for his third inning Wednesday night: Unquestionably a bad move
Unspeakable bad. I know Nathan used to go three innings from time to time, but he is your closer and has been used to 1 or 2 innings tops. The problem becomes whether or not he is going to be too fatigued to pitch effectively in game 3.
That's pretty much the golden rule of playoff strategy, and 9 times out of 10 the team that deviates that far from whatever consistant methodology got them to the postseason loses.
Any team that survives and outlasts Rivera, ties the game against Rivera, holds the fort into extra innings and takes a 12th-inning lead on the road has NO BUSINESS finding a way to lose that game.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrgh.
In a short series, there's extremely little margin for error. After eight straight balls, I don't care if you have the Ghost of Christy Mathewson on the mound, you go to the bullpen. Not pulling Nathan was like taking your boot off the rattlesnake so that you can get face-to-face and give it a goodbye kiss.
Silva had better throw a helluva game.
“Back in 2000 a Republican friend warned me that if I voted for Al Gore and he won, the stock market would tank, we'd lose millions of jobs, and our military would be totally overstretched. You know what? I did vote for Gore, he did win, and I'll be damned if all those things didn't come true!" -- James Carville
My roommates are not big baseball fans, but they were watching the end of the Twins game with me. They were amazed when I called the collapse in the 12th after the 3rd of the 9 or 10 straight Nathan balls. They didn't understand that me and every person watching who has watched any baseball has seen this train wreck so many times. It got so bad even they were asking why Nathan was still in there.
Along the lines of having seen this before, I've seen what happens after games like that. Unless you have Johnson and Schilling, you don't survive that sort of collapse. Yankees in 4.
HELP IS ON THE WAY! "They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush 8/5/04
Why do you not go on the field and raise all he!! about Rivas not being awarded home on the ground rule double in the eighth? He was running with the pitch, and would have easily scored if the ball hadn't hopped into the stands.
I know that no umpire will have the cajones to make that call (I only recall seeing it made once this year), but you have to try, don't you???
Originally posted by Sec19Row53Why do you not go on the field and raise all he!! about Rivas not being awarded home on the ground rule double in the eighth? He was running with the pitch, and would have easily scored if the ball hadn't hopped into the stands.
I know that no umpire will have the cajones to make that call (I only recall seeing it made once this year), but you have to try, don't you???
I didn't EVER recall seeing a runner be awarded more than two bases in the event of a ground-rule double on account of a judgment call from the umpire, so I looked it up.
MLB Rule 6.09(e): A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;
That's pretty cut-and-dried: Two bases. Always. The announcers tend to make a big deal about the ground-rule double being a bad break for a team when they would've clearly scored if the ball had bounced off the wall instead of over it. They did it last night when A-Rod doubled in the 12th in fact.
(edited by JayJayDean on 7.10.04 0750) “To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.
"Your input has been noted. I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
Originally posted by Sec19Row53Why do you not go on the field and raise all he!! about Rivas not being awarded home on the ground rule double in the eighth? He was running with the pitch, and would have easily scored if the ball hadn't hopped into the stands.
I know that no umpire will have the cajones to make that call (I only recall seeing it made once this year), but you have to try, don't you???
As JayJay basically said, if you give Rivas home, then you have to give A-Rod home as well. As much as that sucked, it was within the rules.
Of course, if Gardenhire had realized that Nathan was gassed before he went one guy too long, and wasn't playing musical chairs out in the bullpen (who was he trying to confuse, anyway? They've got 2 mounds out there, right? Put both Romero and Crain up), we may not be having this conversation. Of course ... now the series is tied.
Originally posted by Sec19Row53Why do you not go on the field and raise all he!! about Rivas not being awarded home on the ground rule double in the eighth? He was running with the pitch, and would have easily scored if the ball hadn't hopped into the stands.
I know that no umpire will have the cajones to make that call (I only recall seeing it made once this year), but you have to try, don't you???
I didn't EVER recall seeing a runner be awarded more than two bases in the event of a ground-rule double on account of a judgment call from the umpire, so I looked it up.
MLB Rule 6.09(e): A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;
That's pretty cut-and-dried: Two bases. Always. The announcers tend to make a big deal about the ground-rule double being a bad break for a team when they would've clearly scored if the ball had bounced off the wall instead of over it. They did it last night when A-Rod doubled in the 12th in fact.
(edited by JayJayDean on 7.10.04 0750)
9/25/04 - Boston beat the Yanks 12-5 and Francona was thrown out arguing rule 3.16 (I think this is the rule that when used in conjunction with 6.09, allows the umpire discretion in balls interfered with by fans). Posada had doubled down the line with ARod and Matsui on base, and the umpire (rightly IMO) awarded Matsui home (from first), judging that Matsui would have scored from first on the play had there been no fan interference. This differs from both ground-rule doubles last night, since there was no fan interference. Balls bouncing from the field into the stands doesn't give the umpire leeway on awarding bases, only with fan interference. Before that game at Boston, I don't remember seeing any ump award an extra base for any reason, myself.
Regarding Gardenhire's decision to leave Nathan in, I guess he thought that since Rincon (his second best reliever, it seems) had already pitched, Nathan was the best bet to close it out in the 12th. However (and I find it hard to agree with Joe Morgan, but I will), Nathan was throwing a lot of pitches, pitching for the second day in a row, and lost a LOT of steam. He struck out Olerud, but after the Cairo walk, I just had that tingly feeling that with Jeter, Alex, Sheff, and Matsui to follow, good things were gonna happen for the Yanks. Romero was shellacked the last series against NY last week. He knew that if he won Game 2, he wouldn't have to pitch him at all on Friday. One of those "leave Pedro in" choices, it seems to me...
MLB Rule 6.09(e): A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;
It seems to me that if a runner has already passed a base when the ball becomes unplayable, then they could advance two bases from there (i.e. a player starts on first, and has passed second base when the ball bounds into the stands--couldn't the umpire allow him to score even though he started at first?) However, I don't recall ever seeing this happen. IMHO, this should happen if the runner was trying to steal and therefore would be practically standing on the next base (and also would be sprinting at full speed) by the time the batter made contact. But, again, I can't recall seeing a runner who started on first being awarded home on a steal attempt when a ground rule double is hit either.
Of course, on the other hand, we can all remember runners who were steaming past third well on their way to scoring being called back to third base because of the ground rules. Personally, I think we should give the umps a little more leeway.
Originally posted by Sec19Row53Why do you not go on the field and raise all he!! about Rivas not being awarded home on the ground rule double in the eighth? He was running with the pitch, and would have easily scored if the ball hadn't hopped into the stands.
I know that no umpire will have the cajones to make that call (I only recall seeing it made once this year), but you have to try, don't you???
I didn't EVER recall seeing a runner be awarded more than two bases in the event of a ground-rule double on account of a judgment call from the umpire, so I looked it up.
MLB Rule 6.09(e): A fair ball, after touching the ground, bounds into the stands, or passes through, over or under a fence, or through or under a scoreboard, or through or under shrubbery, or vines on the fence, in which case the batter and the runners shall be entitled to advance two bases;
That's pretty cut-and-dried: Two bases. Always. The announcers tend to make a big deal about the ground-rule double being a bad break for a team when they would've clearly scored if the ball had bounced off the wall instead of over it. They did it last night when A-Rod doubled in the 12th in fact.
(edited by JayJayDean on 7.10.04 0750)
I'll stand corrected, since I can't point to the incident I remember and swear that it was a ground rule double as opposed to fan interference.
As for this happening in the 12th - I missed the play. I had a better offer at the time :)
Originally posted by CorajudoPersonally, I think we should give the umps a little more leeway.
No, no, a thousand times NO. Making that a judgment call would be a disaster, and adding any gray areas where there are black-and-white rules is a BAD idea.
Originally posted by Sec19Row53As for this happening in the 12th - I missed the play. I had a better offer at the time :)
Where's the thread on THAT?! :)
(edited by JayJayDean on 7.10.04 1217) “To get ass, you’ve got to bring ass." -- Roy Jones Jr.
"Your input has been noted. I hope you don't take it personally if I disregard it." -- Guru Zim
Originally posted by JayJayDeanNo, no, a thousand times NO. Making that a judgment call would be a disaster, and adding any gray areas where there are black-and-white rules is a BAD idea.
Yeah, Jon Miller and Joe Morgan argued about this, with Miller thinking the umpires should be able to make the call, and Morgan basically just went, "No." about 30 times. And Morgan's right, the umpires have enough to deal with, they don't need to be deciding the outcomes of games, potentially, with a judgment call. It's two bases, it's always been two bases, keep it two bases. Them's the breaks.
Originally posted by ScottChrist the umpires have enough to deal with, they don't need to be deciding the outcomes of games, potentially, with a judgment call.
But that's their job. They do it all the time. Tell me balls and strikes aren't judgement calls. They have a framework to work with and they apply their judgement to each pitch. Same with batters HBP. Surely it isn't to much to ask a 3 man crew to say if the runner from 1st was at/past 2nd and give him home on a ground rule double?
Originally posted by MercBut that's their job. They do it all the time. Tell me balls and strikes aren't judgement calls. They have a framework to work with and they apply their judgement to each pitch.
Who says John Olerud would score on the same play that Rafael Furcal would? Do we attempt to track their 40 times and add that to figuring out who would score when? Also let's take into account how well the potential fielder can throw, and judge whether, had the ball stayed in the park, he would've been able to make a play. Also I guess we should try to calculate in the relay man's arm too. And accuracy? Hmm. Also, what if the catcher were to drop it.
The ball goes over the fence on a bounce and it's two bases, and everyone else moves two bases. It's a rule of baseball. Why add in something else that is inevitably going to decide the outcome of an important game? There's really no reason for it other than sometimes you're like, "Shit, if that had stayed in the park, dude would've scored." Well, it didn't. Them's the breaks.
And, yeah, I think it's too much to ask a lot of crews to get ANYTHING right, let alone adding in ANOTHER factor of the game they get to decide on. They already have balls and strikes and close plays at the bags and all that - that's plenty enough. The rest is played by the players, and I like it that way.
Originally posted by ScottChrist There's really no reason for it other than sometimes you're like, "Shit, if that had stayed in the park, dude would've scored." Well, it didn't. Them's the breaks. The rest is played by the players, and I like it that way.
(edited by ScottChrist on 8.10.04 0311)
Normally, I'd agree with you 100%, but I'm only at about 90% or so because the officials have their snouts in so many things in baseball as it is. There isn't that much left to the players. If there was you wouldn't have pitchers ejected on suspicion of maybe throwing at a guy. I still think its possible for the officials to have the discretion to say the runner would have made it home, they know Pierre or Crawford is faster than Andres Galarraga. Saying that, I think you bring up good enough reasons not to do it.
Thread ahead: Search party for Cards/Astros Game 1 Next thread: Cardinals, Dodgers shake hands at conclusion of series Previous thread: Just in time for the Sox/Yanks series
Thread rated: 5.66
#
#