batmagadanleadoff

dinosaur jesus wrote: Name one sport where players don't argue close calls. It's human nature to believe you beat that throw. Or that maybe you were out if you want to get technical about it, but the other team is getting all the breaks so you should too. You going to make a rule against human nature? That's not cheating. Cheating is the stuff you get away with. Yeah. I don't think arguing is cheating even if the player arguing knows for sure that the ump's call was correct. It's mostly theater, and like you said , part instinct and an outlet to release frustration and perhaps, to motivate or inspire his teammates, and also, when the player thinks the ump was wrong - to let the ump know he was wrong. And even when the arguing player truly thinks the ump was wrong, he doesn't expect to "argue the ump" into reversing his call. Corking the bat -- now that's cheating! I think a player has to violate a rule to have cheated. There's no rule against arguing a tag play, although there probably are limits. Likewise, pitch-framing is legal, even though the catcher is intentionally trying to deceive the home plate umpire by making a ball look like a strike to the ump. There's nothing illegal about the way a catcher catches a pitch very near to the edge of home plate to make it appear as if it were a strike even though that pitch never crossed home plate.

dinosaur jesus wrote: Name one sport where players don't argue close calls. It's human nature to believe you beat that throw. Or that maybe you were out if you want to get technical about it, but the other team is getting all the breaks so you should too. You going to make a rule against human nature? That's not cheating. Cheating is the stuff you get away with. Yeah. I don't think arguing is cheating even if the player arguing knows for sure that the ump's call was correct. It's mostly theater, and like you said , part instinct and an outlet to release frustration and perhaps, to motivate or inspire his teammates, and also, when the player thinks the ump was wrong - to let the ump know he was wrong. And even when the arguing player truly thinks the ump was wrong, he doesn't expect to "argue the ump" into reversing his call. Corking the bat -- now that's cheating!

https://sports.yahoo.com/longest-day-mets-history-135528218.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKtJL44HjSyRM1S_YBPr4mQ8YCuk75GFwow4jdF_zvEO3bN4-FQao9iNbu0V387pGn4bdmQZJ6ucdB6s-idOR4U1NGsqObp4Yro6FOookKWdcYUHrPYuYzLKAyQajSollK1bJJTRyWffA7VgC7Ns4hRuLw2OxtA9B5g5m7BC-Q23https://sports.yahoo.com/longest-day-mets-history-135528218.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKtJL44HjSyRM1S_YBPr4mQ8YCuk75GFwow4jdF_zvEO3bN4-FQao9iNbu0V387pGn4bdmQZJ6ucdB6s-idOR4U1NGsqObp4Yro6FOookKWdcYUHrPYuYzLKAyQajSollK1bJJTRyWffA7VgC7Ns4hRuLw2OxtA9B5g5m7BC-Q23 https://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/1328730/on-this-date-in-sports-may-31-1964-a-long-day-at-sheahttps://www.barstoolsports.com/blog/1328730/on-this-date-in-sports-may-31-1964-a-long-day-at-shea [FIMG=666]https://chumley.barstoolsports.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/31/Longnight.png[/FIMG]

=roger_that post_id=66041 time=1622466050 user_id=128] In reality we know that most runners arguing they were safe know perfectly well they were out, and are lying about what they know to be true....

It is cheating to insist that you were safe when the umpire calls you out for what he saw with his own eyes, whether on replay or in real time. The correct move there is to say "Damn, I thought I might've gotten away with breaking contact, wasn't even sure I had, but you got me. Good call." Just because the ump saw it with his own eyes doesn't necessarily make the call correct. I think that the baserunner would have to be 100%:certain that he was out to be accused of cheating for nevertheless arguing the out call. And even then, I'm not sure it would be cheating because arguing with the ump is essentially symbolic; the player should have no expectation of persuading the ump to change his call. (But, see, shoe,-polish incident, 1969 WS). And if the player has a good faith belief that he's safe, then he's not cheating for arguing the call.

Current Met Wilfredo Tovar, who made his MLB debut nine seasons ago in 2013, and has played in the majors for parts of four seasons, had still not used up his rookie status when the Mets promoted Tovar to their 25-man roster this season. https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2021-rookies.shtml#all_misc_pitchinghttps://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2021-rookies.shtml#all_misc_pitching

Edgy MD wrote: I think there's a purpose to coming off the bag for a fraction of a second, even if it's not intentional. Perhaps. But still, (and to the other guy's comment) that doesn't mean that a baserunner who came off the base like both deGrom and Villar did the other night was "cheating", let alone indisputably "cheating". Because, and going back to your hook slide at third memory, it's not necessarily about the intent to briefly come off the base. Cheating is about the intent to deceive the umpire or an attempt to gain a competitive advantage by intentionally breaking a rule. A sliding baserunner who comes off second base because he suddenly, as the tag play is unfolding, decides to try for third base, but is tagged out as soon as he comes off second base isn't, on these facts alone, cheating, even though he came off second base intentionally.

Edgy MD wrote: They didn't need to change the rules to protect Tejada. They needed to enforce the rules they had, which is what they need to do here. I agree with this. This is exactly what I wrote when we discussed that play in 2015. Also, I think those deGrom and Villar out calls are very rare, even with the use of replay challenges. If those calls had become very frequent with the use of replay review, then maybe I'd be on board with a rule change. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

Edgy MD wrote: I think there's a purpose to coming off the bag for a fraction of a second, even if it's not intentional. Perhaps. But still, (and to the other guy's comment) that doesn't mean that a baserunner who came off the base like both deGrom and Villar did the other night was "cheating", let alone indisputably "cheating".

I'm sure that a guy who drops a pop fly had no intent to drop it either. Still an error, still a runner on base. This is a very silly argument. Play the game right. But what does this example have to do with cheating? The "guy" that accidentally dropped the pop fly in your example wasn't cheating, either. I agree that this is a very silly argument. But you're all mixed up as to who's being silly here.

dinosaur jesus wrote: This is a very silly argument, amounting to "Runners have cheated since time immemorial, so now that we have the technology to tell definitively when they've cheated, we should make cheating legal." The solution is obvious: instruct runners to maintain better contact with the bases when the ball is anywhere near them. If this means a slower jump on tag-up plays, or more runners called out trying to steal, then that's what it means. End of discussion, no? I didn't say they were cheating. Villar wasn't cheating on that slide. I'm saying that if you slide straight into a base and right over it, and only a close examination with a high-speed camera can show that his upper body came off the ground a millisecond before his lower body reached the bag, then maybe it's not worth making that examination. Maybe if the umpire had been lying flat on the ground with a good view of Villar's belly he might have caught it. But he was in perfect position and he didn't. A tag-up play is a completely different situation. It's hard to call, because you have to assess two things happening hundreds of feet apart. But it's not impossible. And umpires almost always get them right. We've gotten into the territory of trying to judge whether a horse's feet are all on the ground at the same time, or whether urine flows in a continuous stream or a collection of droplets. Interesting questions, but nothing to do with how the game is played. No, that was me calling all loss-of-contact-while-being-tagged "cheating." It plainly is cheating, pure and simple and indisputable. It's not cheating and there's no indisputable evidence that a runner coming off the base for two seconds is cheating. Cheating requires intent. These runners are briefly coming off the base accidentally and without any intent -- they've generated an enormous amount of momentum in running to the base as quick as they can to arrive safely and then suddenly can't shut off that momentum on a dime even though they have to in order to remain in contact with the base. That's what 's happening. Nobody's cheating. What would be the runner's incentive to cheat -- to purposely come off the base for a fraction of a second? There's nothing to be gained and everything to be lost -- risking being called out and also losing possession of the base. There's no point in coming off the base for a fraction of a second on purpose.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=65856 time=1622237714 user_id=68] So you're saying that replay review is now moot because nothing should be reviewable anyways? How does that make any sense?

Frayed Knot wrote: Oh good, it's been nearly 48 hours since we last had a postponement. The Mets are going to wind up needing to play somewhere around 47 games in September and probably most of them will be more of these Little League Double-Headers. Jake deGrom's gonna have to be like twice as good as Gibson was in '68 to win this year's Cy Young award what with all the starts he's gonna miss. As things stand now, deGrom's leading the NL in just about every single rate stat. Rate wise, deGrom just might be twice as good as Gibson was in '68 right now.

Whether we use electronics to ensure the call is right is now moot. ??????????????? What if the umpire got the call wrong? What recourse is there for the "injured party"? I dunno. What about replay review? You know ... using electronics to ensure the call is right. But some calls are not reviewable (by rule). What then? I give up. I'm still trying to figure out why using electronics to ensure the call is right is supposed to be moot. Remember, there is no more "playing the game under protest" Yeah, I remember. No team ever won a protest on grounds that an ump made an incorrect judgment call anyways. That was never a basis for a successful protest. Protests were granted where an ump misinterpreted the rules and it was deemed that that rules misinterpretation was not a harmless error, but that the error materially impacted the outcome of the game -- like the Merkle boner game or the George Brett pine tar game. It should go back to the umpires getting the call right, and if there's a question about an interpretation of the rules (e.g.- ball hit a wall over or under the home run line, fair or foul), deciding it with a meeting of the umpires. Other plays, where a rule interpretation is not involved (e.g- tag plays), should not be reviewable. So you're saying that replay review is now moot because nothing should be reviewable anyways? How does that make any sense? I have no idea what you're saying. You don't even distinguish between errors in judgment and errors in rules interpretation, lumping them all together to compound your confusing post.

Lefty Specialist wrote: Haven't kept score at a game since the Carter administration. I'm pretty sure this is me, too.

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=65805 time=1622163259 user_id=68] That's the kind of baserunning mayhem and chaos that you'd expect Daniel Murphy to cause.

That's the kind of baserunning mayhem and chaos that you'd expect Daniel Murphy to cause.

dinosaur jesus wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=65631 time=1622071431 user_id=68] This is not a replay issue because that kind of out call can be made, just the same, in real-time, live, without the benefit of replay review. And it makes no sense to claim that replay is flawed because it presents the play under review with greater clarity. But that's just the point. Villar losing contact with the bag was not something that the umpire could have seen in real time. That's what we're talking about here, not plays that are so close that you need replay to decide them.

Edgy MD wrote: Hist'ry!! [th]Rank[/th][th]Name[/th][th]AB[/th][th]PA[/th][th]AVG[/th]1Randy Tate4147.0002Cameron Maybin2322.000T3Sandy Alomar2222.000T3Andy Hassler2223.0005Corey Oswalt1922.000T6Mike Remlinger1721.000T6Brent Gaff1720.0008John Franco1515.0009Dale Murray1317.00010Miguel Batista1215.000 For now. But Maybin has a decent chance of holding this "record". With the Mets roster in such flux, it's conceivable that Maybin's the next man out as soon as one of the injured outfielders comes back.

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: Oh c'mon. An umpire shouldn't be allowed to call a baserunner safe because he was "close enough" in tagging the base. Maybe next, a first baseman wouldn't have to have his foot on the base to complete an out play at first. Or maybe the home ump should be allowed to call a strike on a pitch that he truly believes to be a ball because the pitch was "close enough" to home plate. Because it's so ticky-tacky to call a ball on a pitch that, by an eighth of an inch, barely misses home plate. Youse want a really good football analogy instead of the crossing the end-zone plane stuff? This is like a running back who's about to lose control of the football being allowed to call a timeout just before he fumbles the ball. No it's not. I'm saying leave it to the umpire to determine whether an infintessimal and momentary separation of body and base ought to be reviewable when a guy clearly beats a tag/throw to 2nd or 3rd base and signals no intention to progress further than that bag in the moment. Now if some palooka tries to nick a corner of the bag with his pinky and his entire body slides into the baseline, maybe you can review. Or when a dumbass times his slide poorly and passes the base entirely, yeah review that. But this bullshit we saw last night--beat the throw, only intended to stop his motion and remain in place-- that's the kind of shit that makes every play some theoretical result and reflects poorly on everyone. I didn't think I was responding to your post. But if I was, or did, I'd say that I don't have a problem with this kind of play being reviewable. In fact, I'm for more reviewability. I also disagree with DJ where he opines that events that the umpire can barely see with his human eye shouldn't be reviewable either. That's gonna change for sure in due time, when balls and strikes calls are eventually automated as soon as the technology is solid enough. That should eliminate entirely the catcher's ability to "pitch frame" some balls into incorrectly called strikes. There's an example of replay rightfully fixing something that the umpire on the field can't possibly see correctly -- the pitch that's infinitesimally close to the edge of home plate - but not quite over home plate itself. So I'm all for replay. The more the better. I do agree with FK, though, that a team should have a set number of challenges -- a firm number. And that the team should have a reasonable amount of time to declare a replay challenge, but not enough to conduct its own internal replay review before deciding whether or not to call for a replay challenge. And the standard for overturning the call made on the field should be clear and convincing indisputable evidence that the call on the field was incorrect. The field umpires should be given the benefit of the doubt on a replay challenge and absent indisputable evidence of a wrong call, the replay umps should defer to the field umps.

A Boy Named Seo wrote: With his 0-1 today so far, Cameron Maybin is doing something... um, special. He's now hitless in 22 ABs, so my friend and I were talking about who has the most ABs without a hit in a season for the Mets, and he came up with a list of only 3 guys who have "bettered" Maybin. Can you guess which three Mets have longer hitless streaks than Cameron? The Major League record is 69 (nice) by Bob Buhl of the Cubs. PS - Grimm can hopefully check my homework here, if necessary. http://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30333&p=65711#p65711http://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=30333&p=65711#p65711

Edgy MD wrote: History being made! Sandy Alomar tied! Hitlessest Mets in Met History [th]Rank[/th][th]Name[/th][th]AB[/th][th]PA[/th][th]AVG[/th]1Randy Tate4147.000T2Sandy Alomar2222.000T2Andy Hassler2223.000T2Cameron Maybin2221.0005Corey Oswalt1922.000T6Mike Remlinger1721.000T6Brent Gaff1720.0008John Franco1515.0009Dale Murray1317.00010Miguel Batista1215.000 What's unique about this counting stat is that with one hit, Maybin will come off this list completely. If you broke up this list into two lists -- one for hitters and one for pitchers -- a reasonable thing to do for this statistic-- Maybin is now tied for the top of the hitters list.

Edgy MD wrote: History being made! Sandy Alomar tied! Hitlessest Mets in Met History [th]Rank[/th][th]Name[/th][th]AB[/th][th]PA[/th][th]AVG[/th]1Randy Tate4147.000T2Sandy Alomar2222.000T2Andy Hassler2223.000T2Cameron Maybin2221.0005Corey Oswalt1922.000T6Mike Remlinger1721.000T6Brent Gaff1720.0008John Franco1515.0009Dale Murray1317.00010Miguel Batista1215.000 What's unique about this counting stat is that with one hit, Maybin will come off this list completely.

dinosaur jesus wrote: It can get complicated, I'll give you that. Ultimately I'd just hope we're not not stuck with the kind of arbitrary legalistic pulled from someone's ass nonsense the NFL seems to prefer. I guess I'd just rather they kept it simple and didn't re-examine every little thing. I'm willing to live with letting the really close calls go if the really clear mistakes can be rectified. Sure. But that sliding play, like last night's Villar and deGrom plays, could, just the same, occur in the ninth inning of a late season tie game with a playoff spot on the line. That would, potentially, be a bigger call than a fair/foul home run call in a June game. Context, besides the play itself, also determines the magnitude of the call.

dinosaur jesus wrote: =batmagadanleadoff post_id=65631 time=1622071431 user_id=68] This is not a replay issue because that kind of out call can be made, just the same, in real-time, live, without the benefit of replay review. And it makes no sense to claim that replay is flawed because it presents the play under review with greater clarity. But that's just the point. Villar losing contact with the bag was not something that the umpire could have seen in real time. That's what we're talking about here, not plays that are so close that you need replay to decide them.