Frayed Knot

Conner Kok-Wy Joe That's a heckuva handle. Where did you come from, where did you come go Where did you come from Cotton Wy Joe?

Our mighty offense notches another victory!!

iow, like Matz and Wheeler before him, Syndergaard is on, or at least much closer to, the two year track for TJS recovery rather than one year.

Or, as some announcer used to say: 'That's 6-4-3 if you're scoring at home ... or even if you're alone'

=bmfc1 post_id=65680 time=1622122717 user_id=73] Saturday--FOX (everyone) Adam Amin, TBA & Ken Rosenthal

I don't know who's selling it like that. Every time replay was introduced, and in each sport where it was introduced, it was done so with the promise that it won't be an added intrusion on the game because standards are going to be in place to keep it limited, decisive, and quick. But it's never any of the above because, once "getting it right" is set as the ultimate goal, it never can be. My stance here isn't to do away with it it's to point out that those who enthusiastically embraced expanded replay (beyond the initial HR/not-HR calls) were naive if they thought that these sort of 'micro-corrections' were somehow going to be exempt. Nor am I trying to un-reverse the calls from the other night but rather am suggesting that the best way to limit reviews of such minor misses would be the elimination of the delayed request and a phasing out of reversals where the review is clearly less than conclusive, aka: 'coin-flip' calls.

Marlines beat Phils so they've split their series so far. Braves had a lead but were in the process of giving it away when the rains came. BoSox lead 7-4 in the 7th but could still resume. Nats leading Reds 3-0 in the 4th but they're also in a rain delay

dinosaur jesus wrote: ... 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. Which is how replay is always sold, that only the egregious mistakes will get examined. But once you open that box there's no way to keep it to only certain levels of errors. The only thing that, IMO, will keep it towards that end would be to not allow teams to micro-examine the replay before deciding whether or not they want the off-site umps to micro-examine it further, AND for those same off-site umps to overturn only those calls where there really is 'clear and convincing' evidence rather than what I call the 'coin flip' calls where they seem to indicate that a given call was probably incorrect and therefore we're flipping it. Eliminate those two conditions and the percentage of challenges that involve this kind of ticky-tack call will disappear almost completely.

One start after his mo-hitter, Cory Kluber left his game Tuesday with "shoulder soreness" and will miss a "significant " length of time on the IL In Atlanta, Marcell Ozuna is IL'd with finger fractures.

The Rox are due in Pittsburgh on Friday so a DH tomorrow is certainly doable and probably optimal (NYM already have enough makeup games ahead of them). Yanx have already scheduled a pair for Thursday.

=bmfc1 post_id=65615 time=1622063935 user_id=73] The MFYs postponed tonight's game b/c of the threat of rain.

=G-Fafif post_id=65605 time=1622060653 user_id=55] Dom Smith has a knee contusion (not IL-bound).

=Ceetar post_id=65573 time=1622036185 user_id=102] could make the bags bigger. even a few inches on either side would make stolen bases slightly easier, make staying on the bag slightly easier, would make beating out infield singles slightly easier. You'd barely notice, and MLB _probably_ could tweak it without screwing it up like the ball.

I'm repeating myself here too, but what I suspect is that MLB is afraid of two things if they attempt to limit replay. 1) that if they do away with the 'call from upstairs' step they fear that the home team would gain an advantage via some sort of signaling system which the road team wouldn't have access to. 2) if a bad call was allowed to stand, either because a team had run out of challenges and/or it didn't have the benefit of viewing the replay first, the sports media (which, let's face it, is already about 80% anti-baseball) would skewer the sport for still living in the 19th century by having the technology to right the wrong but choosing not to do so, and I think they'd be very sensitive to that kind of criticism.

NL East goings on while we are (hopefully) feeding on the weak underbelly of the NL West - Braves are in Fenway where they won the first of a two-game series on Tuesday This brings the Braves to .500 (24-24) and just 1.0 game behind the Mets - Nats lost a Scherzer start to the Reds 2-1, dropping the Nats to 20-24 and keeping them in the cellar though just 3 games out of 1st - Phils (-1.5) beat the Marlins (-2.0) though Bryce Harper hits the IL And Steven Matz beat the Yanx which is essentially what you want from Steven Matz these days.

The problem, as I've stated here a number of times, is that replay is always sold on the idea that it will only be used to correct the most obvious goofs and that it will be limited and that it will be quick. So fans, imagining a world where the Denkinger calls gets reversed, where the Galarraga kid from Detroit gets his perfect game back, and where the handful of blatant calls that go against your team each year (only your team, the other side never gets screwed by the umps) get corrected, enthusiastically embrace the concept and believe that the baseball world becomes a better place for it. But once "getting it right" is set as the ultimate goal there becomes no way to keep it from being used for every infraction no matter how minor. Don't want it to overturn calls where a foot comes off the base by an inch? Then how 'bout two inches? Is two not enough but you could see flipping it if it were four? There's got to be a standard somewhere and the only logical standard is that you have to stay in contact with the base. If you're off it while being tagged then you're out. The goal line analogy isn't remotely the same thing here. So how to "fix" things? 1) The pre-delay is most the obvious answer. If the Rox truly believe that deVillar came off the base in real time then they're free to challenge but they don't get half a minute to study the replay like it's the Zabruder film before deciding to decide. I'd give teams an extra challenge in exchange for eliminating this farce. 2) Stick to whatever the limit is. If you get two challenges then you get two. Not two plus begging the umps for more because it's past the 7th inning and you spent both of yours on ticky-tack calls back in the 1st but this time you really, really think you're right. The manager is going to need to trust his players; if they call for a replay because they swear they tagged him in time and that turns out to be not the case then that skipper is going to be reluctant to take that player's word for it in the future. 3) the umpiring crews in the replay office need to be VERY reluctant to overturn borderline calls. Again, replay is sold on the premise that only "conclusive" evidence will overturn a call but we all know that's not true. If ten years or so of MLB evidence isn't enough to convince you of that then four decades of NFL replay follies should be. What's become the norm instead is what I like to call the 51% rule, if the crew think it's more likely that he's out than safe then they flip the call even though the evidence isn't within a Pete Alonso HR of being conclusive. How many times over the years (again, NFL has the bigger pot of evidence) have you on your couch, or the guy in the barstool next to you, or the announcers in the booth, seen eight different angles of replays and declared that there's "No Way" this one is/isn't going to be overturned ... and yet it is (or is not)? Apply what was supposed to be the standard in the first place then these borderline challenges will get rejected more often which will lead to managers being more reluctant to challenge them in the first place. And if it turns out that the dude's foot did come off the base for a split second but you didn't challenge because you were unsure then you've got to live with it and move on.

Yes, I believe there are probably guidelines or limits and that Rojas has some discretion to operate around those pre-arrsnged constraints.

You want to impress me Guillorme, let's see five.

Mazeika seems to have good bat-to-ball skills. A nice waste pitch swing kept that AB alive. And his K rate in the minors isn't real high, at least considering the era.

All ya gotta do is get JdG out of the game and the runs start to flow.

I don't believe that these decisions are being entirely, or maybe even partially, by Rojas.

Three innings worth of pitches (45) to get through four innings ... not easy to do six Ks

Frayed Knot wrote: Mets trying their very best to not score despite two hits and a walk in the frame. oe. two hits and two walks And they suceed!! (by not succeeding)

Mets trying their very best to not score despite two hits and a walk in the frame. oe. two hits and two walks

I don't remember 'Neck bone connected to the hand bone' being part of the song.