Is Todd a Charlatan?

[Edgy MD]

Last night, Steve Gelbs, Mets sideline reporter, amazingly reported as fact, rather than conjecture, that Todd Frazier had duped the umps into ruling an out on a catch he didn't make. I reviewed the video evidence, and it is anything from conclusive that Todd, supposedly, presented a squishy toy ball that ended up underneath him as the real McCoy. Or McGraw. Or whatever.

So what does Gelbs know to lay it out as an established fact that the Mets' thirdbaseman is a grim deceiver, an inveigler, and a chiseler of the lowest order? Has a teammate spoken off the record? Todd himself?

[Frayed Knot]

Yeah that's the thing, Gelbs gave us no clue as to where he got his info or if Frazier himself has fessed up to this.
I personally hope Frazier continues to claim his catch even in the face of sworn affidavits from front row Dodger fans, threatened lawsuits from LA-area politicians, and visual proof from some not-yet-seen camera angle.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Yeah. This morning, I watched that video. I mean really watched it. Like over and over. And then over. Dissecting it. Stopping it frame by frame at the critical moments.

And I couldn't find any conclusive footage that would indisputably support Gelbs's rubber ball claim.

[Centerfield]

In the replay it looks like he caught it. If not, that's a neat trick.

Almost as neat as the time he got the Mets to give him a 2 year deal and tricked them into thinking it was a bargain.

[Ceetar]

Centerfield wrote: In the replay it looks like he caught it. If not, that's a neat trick. Almost as neat as the time he got the Mets to give him a 2 year deal and tricked them into thinking it was a bargain.

I mean, it was.

and he did catch it anyway.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Ceetar wrote: Centerfield wrote: In the replay it looks like he caught it. If not, that's a neat trick. Almost as neat as the time he got the Mets to give him a 2 year deal and tricked them into thinking it was a bargain. I mean, it was. and he did catch it anyway.

If he caught it, he wouldn't have thought he needed to trick the ump, right?

[Ceetar]

batmagadanleadoff wrote: Ceetar wrote: Centerfield wrote: In the replay it looks like he caught it. If not, that's a neat trick. Almost as neat as the time he got the Mets to give him a 2 year deal and tricked them into thinking it was a bargain. I mean, it was. and he did catch it anyway. If he caught it, he wouldn't have thought he needed to trick the ump, right?

You always make sure. A review would've ruled that he'd made the catch.

[Frayed Knot]

If he caught it, he wouldn't have thought he needed to trick the ump, right?

We still don't KNOW that he did. And, unless either Frazier himself comes clean or Gelbs reveals his source, I don't think we're going to know because the video evidence certainly doesn't prove
anything one way or the other.
The guy in the Turner shirt (there were several) picks up A ball but how do we know THAT'S the real one?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Todd Frazier wrote: "It is Hollywood, so sometimes you have to act out a little bit," said Frazier. "Basically I caught the ball going in the stands and as I came down the ball came out. After seeing the replay there was another ball there and the first ball I saw I picked up and raised my hand up and [Mark Wegner] called him out. It was just one of those things where I thought real quick, I had a split-second, and if there wasn't a ball there I didn't have a shot to get him out."

https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/mets-todd-frazier-admits-to-switching-balls-to-trick-umpire-on-diving-catch-against-the-dodgers/

[Edgy MD]

Todd's a charlatan. A mountebank. A conniver and a confidence man of the lowest standing.

[seawolf17]

Edgy MD wrote: Todd's a charlatan. A mountebank. A conniver and a confidence man of the lowest standing.

Sign him to a twelve-year extension immediately.

[Benjamin Grimm]

Edgy MD wrote: Todd's a charlatan. A mountebank. A conniver and a confidence man of the lowest standing.

So he's... presidential?

[Edgy MD]

That gives the current president too much credit. He's more of a wretched, ignominious chiseler.

[seawolf17]

Benjamin Grimm wrote: Edgy MD wrote: Todd's a charlatan. A mountebank. A conniver and a confidence man of the lowest standing. So he's... presidential?

"That catch was the moment that Todd Frazier became president."

[smg58]

So are we OK with this?

[Edgy MD]

I know if Todd Frazier, 2017 Yankee thirdbaseman, pulled it off I'd be disapproving, so I wouldn't be particularly consistent if I didn't declare him forthwith to be a vile, reprobate cozener.

And yeah, it can be argued that the Mets are playing out the string, but the Dodgers sure ain't.

[Frayed Knot]

smg58 wrote: So are we OK with this?

I am.

[MFS62]

smg58 wrote: So are we OK with this?

Yes. I'm OK with it, as I am with anything that helps our forces for good defeat the Spawn Of Satan

Later

[smg58]

Edgy MD wrote: I know if Todd Frazier, 2017 Yankee thirdbaseman, pulled it off I'd be disapproving, so I wouldn't be particularly consistent if I didn't declare him forthwith to be a vile, reprobate cozener. And yeah, it can be argued that the Mets are playing out the string, but the Dodgers sure ain't.

If the Dodgers had lost that game, they'd have grounds to file a protest to restart the game from that point.

And how does the league not suspend him over this?

[Frayed Knot]

smg58 wrote: Edgy MD wrote: I know if Todd Frazier, 2017 Yankee thirdbaseman, pulled it off I'd be disapproving, so I wouldn't be particularly consistent if I didn't declare him forthwith to be a vile, reprobate cozener. And yeah, it can be argued that the Mets are playing out the string, but the Dodgers sure ain't. If the Dodgers had lost that game, they'd have grounds to file a protest to restart the game from that point.

Not a chance!
It's an umpire's judgement call which we learned (assuming the Toddfather isn't pulling everyone's leg here) a day or two later was the wrong one.
But judgement calls weren't protestable (is that even a word?) even before the advent of replay, only misinterpretations of rules, but especially so seeing as how the Dodgers had every right to ask for
a replay but opted not to.

Edited September 6, 2018 by Guest

[Frayed Knot]

smg58 wrote: And how does the league not suspend him over this?

Guys, this is the equivalent of an outfielder holding up his glove on a ball he knows he trapped, an attempted fake catch that's happened multiple times per week ever since Nelson Doubleday's ancestor
fake invented this game.

If you can get away with it then you get away with it. There are guys paid to correct things like that but it's not the player. And if both the men in blue AND the team in Dodger blue fail to notice and/or
take action at the time then it's 'Play On' and tough titties if you got a fast one pulled on you.




I think Frazier should be up for 'Player of the Week' honors for this ... or at least I would if he had any actual hits to go along with it.

[Guest John Cougar Lunchbucket]

Yeah there's nothing against the rules of selling a play, we see it allatime

[Edgy MD]

Frayed Knot wrote: smg58 wrote: And how does the league not suspend him over this? Guys, this is the equivalent of an outfielder holding up his glove on a ball he knows he trapped, an attempted fake catch that's happened multiple times per week ever since Nelson Doubleday's ancestor fake invented this game.

Sort of. I mean, an outfielder who holds up a ball in his glove after a trap can plausibly claim he genuinely thought he made the catch. A guy holding up a toy in place of the ball cannot.

It's another sort of thing. Another level and stuff.

[Frayed Knot]

I'd venture to say that most fielders who trap balls are well aware that they didn't actually catch them.
I'll then go further out on a limb to say that NONE of those trappers-turned-glove-holder-uppers ever get a sudden change of heart and go to the umpire requesting that the batter plus any and all runners
be allowed to advance in spite of the temporary misdirection.

[Edgy MD]

It's a different thing.

[Guest 41Forever]

Is it different than when Jeter had a pitch in tight that hit his bat, but he got the umpire to award first base after Jeter pretended he was hit? Hell, he practically acted like his hand was amputated. The media spin then was "Jeter will do anything to help his team."

[MFS62]

41Forever wrote: Is it different than when Jeter had a pitch in tight that hit his bat, but he got the umpire to award first base after Jeter pretended he was hit? Hell, he practically acted like his hand was amputated. The media spin then was "Jeter will do anything to help his team."

Except when he owns it.
Later