Rex Hudler

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Oct 23, 2005 -> 05:15 AM) I will foreward this post with a warning: I do not know a lot about minor league baseball. That being said...I do seem to recall he couldn't hit whatsoever - like a .210 hitter in the minors - but that he was just amazing defensively. I also recall the Sox trying to convert him to a pitcher to put his great arm(like a 95 MPH fastball from what I remember) to use, but that he was very stubborn about not wanting to pitch and wanting to play in the field. You are dead on. Jason Dellaero was the best SS I have ever seen play on a regular basis. Many scouts at the time said that the day he made the Majors with the Sox he instantly became the 3rd best defensive SS in the big leagues. I remember them talking about Vizquel, but can't recall the other one. He made plays that you just don't see made. He had an absolute cannon for an arm. Even though he made a few errors, they never seemed to be at a time that hurt his team. I can't think of another SS I'd want to see the ball hit at with the game on the line. That said, he screwed himself at the plate. He was a switch hitter and finally started to put it together, hitting .268 in 81 games. He was working well with Barons hitting coach Steve Whittaker and the Sox brought him to the big leagues in September. The next season, against the advice of the Sox (and anybody else with half a baseball brain), he decided to stop switch hitting. So he basically had to learn to hit breaking balls going away from RH pitchers batting from the right side. He failed miserably doing so and was too stubborn to listen to anyone. Jason thought he would become the next great AL SS hitting 20-30 HR's a year. He swung from his heels and had no clue, nor ability/willingness to adjust. His numbers after that reflected this. They tried to make him a pitcher but he resisted. The Sox finally made him a deal that they would play him everyday at SS in Birmingham (he had been sitting on the bench in Charlotte) if he would agree to work on pitching and work out of the bullpen for the Barons. He agreed to get more playing time. He just never gave a fair effort to pitching. He refused to give up the HR-hitting SS fantasy (even though Sox personnel told him if he would just hit .250 they would keep him in the big leagues) and never gave pitching a real effort. You could tell he was just going through the motions. His story is a sad one. I have never seen a player that was so good in one phase of the game yet so bad in another. He would have been a pleasure to watch play SS in the Majors. He probably could have made it as a pitcher if he gave it a real effort. Instead, he isn't doing squat right now. Sad, indeed.

Who the hell are the members of CreamTV? How could they forget.......

QUOTE(hammerhead johnson @ Oct 21, 2005 -> 03:46 PM) Sure they do. How long was "Saved By The Bell" on the air? How about "Beverly Hills 90210"? 50 Cent goes platinum multiple times, Will Smith movies gross 100+ million in the box office, etc. You can't use the longevity argument. It has more holes than the swiss cheese on your sandwich. Sure you can when the show is at or near the top of the ratings for that long. I find it funny that everybody thought it was a crappy show or they act too cool for it, but where are the freakin millions that watched it every week? This sounds like a bunch of Southern Baptists to me. No one admits drinking, but they drink like fish when no one from church will see them.

Since when did it become cool to hate on Friends? I'll stand up and say it. Friends was great! It was no Seinfeld, but it was a damned funny show. Sure it had dumb moments, but don't all sitcoms?? Go ahead and fire back at me on this one, but you all can hate all you want, but there are many millions of people each week that disagreed. Crappy shows don't run for 10 years! Seinfeld is an obvious #1. Cheers ended in 1993 and wasn't at its best in its final years, so maybe it doesn't belong on this list, but it certainly is one of the top sitcoms of all time. I got into Newsradio while in syndication and never really watched it when the original episodes ran, but it was excellent. I also liked Just Shoot Me and have grown to like it more now in syndication. Roseanne had connections to Evansville, IN, so that held my interest for awhile, but it got real stupid toward the end. Never saw the humor in 3rd Rock. Married w/ Children was half 80's/half 90's. It was ground breaking TV when it first aired. I never watched Drew Carey the first few years, but fell in love with it later on. I would probably rank it #2 (unless you let me count Cheers). FIRE AWAY!!!

I keep getting a server error and can't get to the map. For now...... Originally from Evansville, IN Also lived briefly in New Castle, IN (what a crappy, dead town!) Currently just south of Birmingham, AL. I've been here for the past 9 years. Now time for a confession.... The first WS I can recall is the 1975 series between the Reds and Red Sox. I was a huge Big Red Machine fan. Unfortunately, after the 1976 WS, they began to break up the Big Red Machine, beginning with getting rid of Tony Perez. My frustration with the Reds coincided with the advent of cable TV in Evansville. I began to watch Milo Hamilton and Jack Brickhouse broadcast Cubs games daily and became a huge Cubs fan. I remained a Cubs fan for many, many years. I was diehard enough that my parents wrote a note to get me out of school early so I could watch the 1984 playoffs. I moved here to Birmingham in January 1997. My association with the Sox began through the Barons, the Sox AA affiliate. Coincidentally, my first apartment in Birmingham didn't carry WGN (remember when they had a pissing fight with some cable companies?) so I didn't get to see the Cubs play very much either. As I got to know the Barons players and got to see them move on to Chicago and play in the bigs, my allegiance toward the Sox began to strengthen. About 6-7 years ago was the first time I found myself rooting for the Sox over the Cubs and I knew at that point I had made the transformation. While I still have a soft spot for the Cubs (I know, some of you will never understand it), the gap has widened enormously the past several years. I feel fortunate to have met and even hung out with some of the current Sox players, as well as others around the bigs. I have been a Sox fan first and foremost for at least the past 5 years and am having a blast. This and another message board I frequent has helped cement the Sox in the place for me. I know I don't have the history with the Sox that many do here, but I am loving every bit of this nonetheless. I want to go watch the game in a bar somewhere Saturday night amongst an exciting atmosphere, but unfortunately, there will not be a bar in this city that will have the game on with sound. It happens to be at the same time as the LSU-Auburn football game and in the South, football will always come first. Go Sox and if I have stones coming for my Cub history, go ahead and heave away.

GO HOOSIERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 11:25 PM) Iowa 3 point favorites over Michigan? Yeah. That's easy money. How much are you laying on Michigan?

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 20, 2005 -> 03:32 AM) When MLB tells me that because they control the tickets and the way they are sold and that I can not buy what I want because they said so... that's a good reason for me to believe them. During the season the Sox sell me whatever I want, as many as I want, to whatever games I want. It's crystal clear to me who controlled the post season tickets. That's different than what others are talking about. If the Sox wanted to do a lottery they could have. They had control over how the tickets that were made available to the public were sold. They may not have had control over how many were for sale? They may have been required to provide a certain number for public sale, which precluded them allowing season ticket holders to buy extras. But the individual team had some control over how the tickets were sold. I confirmed it with a friend in the Braves ticket office today.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 19, 2005 -> 11:21 PM) MLB and Ticketmaster have not always had a deal, and not all teams came on board at the same time, and from the looks of things.. some are not on board at this time - Houston, St Louis, the Cubs notably 3 (the Cubs deal is with MLB and Tickets.Com IIRC and their lovely virtual waiting rooms). I have no idea why, I don't work for them, and quite frankly I don't really care. But when people want to b****, moan, and cry about this s***.. at least b****, moan, and cry to the right people. Or don't. I can't wait to see some of the idiots screaming at the Sox at Soxfest. I hope Kenny tells you all to shut the hell up and sit down. Steff, I'm not buying what you are selling this time. By your own logic there, the Sox had some control here because they took the deal with Ticketmaster. To say, that some teams have the deal and others do not, still squarely puts the choice back into the individual clubs hand.

QUOTE(Steff @ Oct 19, 2005 -> 09:45 PM) You are wrong. There are contracts in place. Steff, then how do different teams use different methods? Houston had a lottery to determine the right to buy the tickets. I had a "friends/family" offer to buy Braves playoff tickets for the same rate as their season ticket holders. MLB sets the price, but I do not believe they control how they are sold. I'm sure they have a say in how many are sold because they control what gets held back. But how else could you explain the differences in how teams do it? And why they put tickets up for sale at different times?

Not sure what to say. What a freakin run!!! Now I just have to figure out how to work out getting to Chicago this weekend!

One of my best friends died at 26. Even after the autopsy and toxicology reports, they could not find a cause. He went to sleep normally one night and never woke up. It went down as natural causes. Sometimes the heart skips a beat and never starts back up. He was about 6'5 and not really heavy, but not skinny. Not sure if that has anything to do with it or not. It's sad but it does happen.

Lastly for anyone that likes sources rather than my brain, here is the rule straight out of Official Baseball Rules.... 6.08©

Tex, the way the game is covered is different than it used to be. TV announcers did not used to blatantly call umpires wrong and then beat it until it became more dead than a horse. Most times they would say "he looked out to me" or "that was really close" rather than making judgements and tossing out blame.

If the shoe were on the other foot, personally I would be livid at AJ for not tagging their hitter that just struck out and I would be pissed at our batter that wasn't running hard to 1B. Players have to play, not umpire. Finley has to know that is a delayed dead ball situation, not an immediate dead ball. He hurt his team, plain and simple. Yes the call was missed, but let's not excuse Finley for screwing up. Then again, that's just the way I look at things. From both sides.

I'm really getting sick of the announcers dwelling on the umpiring. At some point, they need to get over it. The Sox are making the plays and the Angels are not. In Joe Buck's defense (and you don't know how hard it is for me to defend him), he did stop and give the Sox credit for making all of the plays following the controversial calls. That quieted them down, at least for a few minutes.

Stop, you're making me blush

The Angels have certainly not gotten the breaks on the calls, but they also haven't done things themselves to put them in a position to win this series. They aren't hitting much at all, can't string hits together when they do, aren't making good pitches, etc. I knew when they lost Colon that the lack of depth in their rotation would show itself in the middle of the series. Lastly, someone posted (perhaps on another board) a day or two ago, that Santana may have problems because he has had time to think about his start tonight. When he came in and shut down the Yankees, it was in an emergency situation and he could only react, he didn't have time to think about the magnitude of the situation. He's known for several days he would be starting this game, so he has had time to think about it. Whoever indicated that might be a problem for him was dead on. I wish I could remember who it was to give them credit.

On the missed catcher's interference call on Steve Finley, Finley hurt his team. Here is how. Catcher's interference is a delayed dead ball situation. It is not an immediate dead ball. If called, the team on offense may elect to take the result of the play instead of the penalty of the catcher's interference. In this situation, as McCarver noted, Finley should have been awarded 1B with the runner on 1B moving to 2B and the runner on 3B staying put since he was not forced home. The bases would have been loaded with one out. Alternately, if Finley hustled down the line rather than looking back he would have been safe at 1B. In that case, the runner from 3B would have scored and the out would have been recorded at 2B for the 2nd out. The Angels COULD have elected to take that play, giving up the out for the run. If they chose the interference call, they would have the bases loaded with one out, but they would be taking a run off the board. No one knows what they would have chosen, but just by hustling Finley could have an RBI and the Angels be down 3-2 at that point and within one run. Since the call is a delayed dead ball, the umpire should have held his arm straigh out with a closed fist indicating the intereference, but allowing the play to continue to it's completion. So there was no reason for Finley to look back. The umpire does not verbalize anything in that situation and the ball is not dead, so Finley's job is to bust his ass down the line. Here is why it is important for him to do so. What happens if Igughi throws the ball into LF, making an error on the play. By rule, if the batter reaches 1B by hit or error AND all other runners move up one base, the interference is ignored and never becomes an issue. So in reality, by Finley trying to be the umpire, he cost his team a run. Yes the call was missed. But if he does his job, the Angels score another run there.

I knew Josh when he was in Birmingham and hated that play happened to him. I loved that it happened to the Sox, however. I think deep down, Josh knows he messed up and could have prevented this whole mess. Josh was one of the few players I knew that actually read books. I can't recall specific titles, but I am not talking sports and news. He was definitely smart and sometimes even a smart ass, but then again, aren't we all. I thought the article posted was great until then end when the writer claims replays showed that the ball was caught. They didn't. At the very least they were inconclusive and proved that either way it was extremely close.

Who is that dunking greasy?

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Oct 13, 2005 -> 10:57 PM) They asked Ausmus about the play. Just an interesting tidbit... He thinks Paul rolled to the ball to the mound because he knew for sure it was caught. If he thought it may have hit the ground at all, regardless of the call, he would have checked the ball for a scuff mark immediately. He'd want that ball out of the game with the angels coming to the plate. Never thought about this, just adds some more to the whole thing. Kinda cool to here another catcher's take on it. Ausmus is talking like a catcher who has had a night to think about it. The Angels (or so they thought) had just closed out the bottom of the 9th in a tie playoff game. He wasn't thinking about that. Josh jumped out of his crouch so fast it was like he couldn't wait to go grab a bat. His reaction was pure adrenaline and zero thought. Guess who would have been batting 3rd in the top of the 10th for the Angels. Chicago's own Josh Paul. It was a reaction pure and simple. He reacted, acted and then thought later. Basically, it was like a teenage guy seeing a hot naked woman for the first time. Instant wood and all thought leaves the premises.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 13, 2005 -> 03:00 PM) To add a thought to the "Josh Paul Couldn't See the Call" theory. In defense to an Illinois guy, he could see his teammate's reactions. If there had not been the fist pump call, he may have tossed to first, etc. He saw his first baseman heading to the dugout and reacted along the same lines. That could be the case if Josh wasn't already in the motion of tossing the ball to the pitcher's mound when said motion made. The Angels as a group made an assumption. One might even say his teammates reacted the way they did because of how they saw JP react. He shot out of his crouch and started to throw the ball back to the mound immediately. Deep down inside he knows he could have avoided this mess altogether. I'm not saying it was all his fault, but the end responsibility resides with the players playing out the play and not making assumptions.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 13, 2005 -> 12:39 PM) With the distance from the front to the back of a glove, I could see the ball hitting the webbing, fingers, etc and then heading to the palm, therefor changing directions. If balls can bounce out of gloves, why can't they bounce and stay? If that happened you would have seen the glove move at first contact. It didn't. Second, the way the glove was being held, there was no other part of the glove for it to hit before the webbing. The webbing was the first point of contact due to the position of the glove.

QUOTE(YASNY @ Oct 13, 2005 -> 07:03 AM) I have finished reading the thread since my first post, so there is no need to "rehash". But if he makes the same sequence of motions on strike two, how can it be interpretted as an out call? That makes no sense. It just does Yas. In that situation, he should have extended his right arm as he first did, and then did nothing until an out was recorded. If you see an earlier at bat where the ball skipped into AJ's glove, he waited until AJ tagged Molina (I believe) to signal with his fist. Because it was strike three and the play was still live with no out recorded, the fist pump should not have taken place at that time.