Rex Hudler

The problem I have would not be the penalties. I am all for the stiffer penalties. But they need to make sure they have comprehensive testing, surprise tests, at home tests in season or out of season and no limit on the number of tests for a player. Stiff penalties won't help if the players figure out how to mask the test results.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ May 1, 2005 -> 09:36 PM) http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?ac...t=0#entry663754 Enough said. Crede's defense rests. Change the rule to match the NCAA & it's no longer controversial. Likewise it should help cut down on muscle related injuries that occur while avoiding the pitch. So because you didn't like the outcome of this particular call, we should change the rule?? A baserunner cannot collide with the catcher in the NCAA either. Shall we change that rule too? How about the NCAA rule which interprets a change of direction as a stop when a pitcher is throwing from the stretch? Let's just change all the rules we don't agree with.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ May 1, 2005 -> 09:25 PM) Umpire Gary Darling's viewpoint on when HBP should be negated: Only when the batter moves his bat such that it appears he offered at the pitch. In otherwords it's the movement of his bat & not his body that should determine whether a player attempted to avoid a pitch. http://www.goldenbaseball.com/ However, since determining effort is purely based on judgment, many umpires will only void the hit batsman call if the hitter obviously moves into the path of the pitch. Which Crede did. You are proving your dissenters right, not wrong.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ May 1, 2005 -> 09:05 PM) http://bradbury.sewanee.edu/hatpic/hbp.jpg Since the DH was added to the AL, AL hitters are 12.5% more likely to HBP by NL hitters. http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2005/200...eball_rules.pdf Approved ruling: If the batter freezes (makes no attempt to avoid the pitch) and is hit by a pitch that is clearly inside the vertical lines of the batter's box, the ball is dead & the batter is awarded first base. Further discussion beyond the approved ruling cited factual evidence believing that more injuries result from trying to avoid the pitch than from being hit by the pitch. This was the main reason behind adding the freeze rule to NCAA baseball. A subsequent reason was to clarify what is meant by avoiding the pitch. The rationale was that as long as the hitter's movements remain w/in the batter's box the hitter has reasonably tried to avoid the pitch. That was essentially Crede's argument that night as well. Those numbers don't mean squat in terms of this argument and Crede didn't freeze. Even if he did, citing an NCAA rule again doesn't mean squat in this situation. Keep trying.

Now this is getting ridiculous.... Are you even trying to type with a straight face or do you actually believe that drivel?

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ May 1, 2005 -> 05:27 PM) It is you who does not grasp something. You are trying to assess motive based SOLELY on body english. That's ridiculous. Did you bother to read any quotes by Crede? There are a multitude of explanations for Crede's body english on the play. Believe what you will. It's pointless to continue this when all you cling to is your own subjective viewpoint. Ignoring factual evidence in the process. (Crede's HBP history, his hot streak, & how often this call has been made since the AL adopted the DH - a BIG difference). You're right, I don't know s*** about this game........... By the way, since you seem to have the factual evidence, how many times has this call been made since 1974? How many times has the slow inside curveball been ignored? I'm sure you have the numbers since you are spouting factual knowledge. Curious minds would like to know.

QUOTE(Beastly @ Apr 30, 2005 -> 04:52 PM) As a 7 year veteran umpire, this is the right call. Crede needs to make an effort to get out of the way, period. Similiar situation that I had in my game that had me toss 3 coaches that were arguing with me. 7 years?? I thought you were like 16?

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Apr 30, 2005 -> 05:38 PM) It makes no sense. He's on a hot streak (hitting over .300), playing on a bad foot, & has no of the lowest HBP counts on the team in past years. It just makes no sense for him to do that. IMHO, Crede has proven to be an aggresive hitter at the plate. Meaning he's more likely to swing than to take. As soon as the ball was released he probably had it in mind to swing & then as the pitch came at him he did everything in his power to hold the swing back. In the process he got hit. Now here's the thing whether you agree with the ump or not. What's the history behind such a call & what's best for the game? The game has been played for over a 100 yrs & yet such calls are more rare than perfect games. As for what was best for the game? Since pitchers are not required to hit in the AL this was definitely not in the game's best interest. As I said earlier this crew allowed one team to bean the other 6 times in the series. If the Sox learned anything in this series it's to retaliate early. That's the lesson this crew taught them & the rest of the AL because it doesn't pay to ignore it. It is a natural reaction for a player to do whatever it takes to get on base in a close game. IF Crede is awarded first base and then goes on to score the winning run, he is lauded for his "smarts". Such calls are more rare than perfect games (your words) because the same situation is rare. I have tried to explain how that situation is different than a guy turning into a pitch that is moving into him and letting it catch him on the upper arm. I'm sorry you refuse to grasp the difference. It is not like this is a common occurrence.

I agree with Neyer...... For the Sox to keep winning, something will have to change. The pitching will not remain this good. So the onus really falls on the offense. If the offense improves enough to balance out the pitching, then they have a chance to keep winning. He didn't really say how far he thought the pitching would drop off, but he insinuated it could be pretty large because of their career ERAs. If you break it down a little bit, I don't think the drop off will be that great. Garland while he will not finish with a 1.80 ERA should improve on his past performance. Young pitchers do mature and I think we are seeing that with Garland. Buehrle will be consistent and Freddy will migrate toward his career #'s somewhat, but an improved offense should help. Hernandez and Contreras are the wild cards. Both have dealt with either inconsistency or injury in the past. I'm looking forward to seeing how May plays out...........

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 09:13 PM) Is it just me, or does the whole 'chemistry' thing piss everyone else off, too? Juan Uribe is an everyday player, hitting fifth in the lineup, just signed to an extension, is unhappy. Some A player I don't even care about is unhappy about playing time. Jesse Crain, who I just traded for and am using in a setup role, is unhappy. I can understand if your benching a guy who's making ten million that he's unhappy, but come on -- players who are starting are unhappy. It pisses me off, they need to lower it's effect or something... I've noticed the same. Iguchi has been unhappy for three years and has been the everyday 2B the whole time. I also hate when they tell me AAA players are unhappy about their playing time after their season is already over. Of course they are aren't getting much PT, their season is freaking done!

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 09:09 PM) Rex, I'm sorry but you're wrong on this. First off you are making this judgement now after seeing replays of a viewpoint you do NOT get behind the plate. Secondly MLB is a much faster game than pony or little league. I've never once denied a youngster his base when the pitcher had previously beaned a player. Neither the line umpires or the home plate umpire had a viewpoint to accurately make that call. The home plate umpire has to concentrate his effort on the strike zone. He can't concern himself with what the batter is doing. This is why there are so many appeals on check swings. Now you apparently believe that Crede leaned into the pitch purposefully. I do not. I would rather say he misjudged it. As you said it was a curve ball & that is one of the hardest pitches to judge. The fact that it was thrown for a ball coupled with the fact Rowand had been beaned earlier strongly suggests the right call is to give Crede the base. This game was never intended to be called based on instant replays. The perspective on the field is what matters the most. You are entitled to your opinion. I am not sure where the pony or little league reference comes in here, but I'll just ignore it because it means nothing. This was not a check swing. I have no doubt Crede got hit intentionally. It had nothing to do with misjudging anything. He turned as if to get out of the way, and then stuck his elbow out into the pitch. Once again, it has absolutely nothing to do with prior HBP's. It was a freaking slow assed curveball that Crede moved into. You aren't even describing close to what happened. I am well aware of the benefit to the fans/sannouncers of instant replay. My opinion was the same after seeing it the first time. Seeing it again, didn't change my mind. And yes, believe it or not, I have changed my mind after seeing a play more than once. If you want to say I am wrong, that's fine. You are entitled to an opinion. But at least give a halfway accurate description of the play as it actually happened when you make your argument.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Apr 28, 2005 -> 02:50 PM) If we are being technical, the rule saids nothing about pitch speed. The only thing specified is that they try to get out of the way. Technically substituting one body part for another isn't getting out of the way. Also the rule doesn't make any distinctions between trying to get hit, and just not trying to get out of the way. The only thing that is specified is this. There is nothing in there about trying to get hit. Technically, it shouldn't make a differece in the umps mind. Technically Crede did not get out of the way of the pitch, so technically he didn't deserve the base. But Everett didn't make any effort to get out of the way either, he only tried to get hit in a different place. And that in a nutshell is why the rule that was enforced against Crede was ignorant. If you want to make that call, and use the rule to justify it, I would be willing to bet that call should be made on at least 50% of all HBPs, if the umps followed this rule to the letter of the law. ss2k, I am going to speak about the rules in general and try not to re-open the can of worms Jim and I got into in another thread. In addition to the Official Baseball Rules, umpires also have and use Interpretation and Case books. There is a separate book that deals strictly with the interpretation of rules in the rule book. Case Books provide sample plays (from real and imnagined situations) and the correct rulings for said plays. Umpires use those books and they are a legitimate, official source. In this situation, there is a decided difference in how the rule is interpreted. Players are taught to rotate inward to avoid getting hit or to get hit in a meatier part of the body if it is inevitable (back of arm, ass, etc.). If a player does so then that is interpreted as sufficient "effort" to get out of the way. With players throwing as hard as they do now, basically a player has to overtly try to get hit in order for the play to be called this way. A player rolling his shoulder inward and getting caught with a fastball above the elbow is never going to get called. A player who has time on a slow breaking ball, changeup, etc. to react to avoid and then react again trying to get hit will have it called against them. It doesn't happen very often so the "consistency" argument is only valid if you compare it to very similar cases. Personally, I have no doubt Crede not only could have avoided the ball without much effort at all, but he made a secondary effort to get hit. Some here do not agree. That's fine, I don't want to debate that. I just want to make sure that people understand the differences between similar situations. Not all are the same nor are they all interpreted the same. The key is understanding that the umpires have reference materials beyond the rule book itself that allows them to make calls.

One last thing Jim. When I previously stated my background that was not intended in an "I'm smarter than you" context. It was stated simply to show that I have been involved with the game from all sides so I am not seeing it only from an umpires (or any specific point of view). I will be the first to admit I don't know everything about the game. While I have been very fortunate to be involved with the game on many levels, my intention is not to use that to say how smart I am. I am constantly trying to learn more about the game. Perhaps you didn't take it that way and this post has no point, but while I disagree with you on this issue, I certainly didn't want it to come across that way.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 02:56 AM) harold reynolds broke it down, visually presented his interpretation of the incident, and said the umpire was correct "once again." 'Nough said. ESPN IS NEVER WRONG! Not this time, anyway.

I can't do squat with Thomas. He gets blown away on inside fastballs and hits offspeed stuff weakly. I would think it is just me, but I hit those same pitches hard with other hitters. In my owner mode, I traded his ass by the middle of May. Got tired of popping up all the time. LOL

For the most part Fields is a fastball/slider guy.

QUOTE(JimH @ Apr 29, 2005 -> 01:02 AM) First statement ... it damn well does matter because of two things: One, this pitcher was wild inside and had hit a batter already. Two, many many hit by pitches can be avoided if the batter contorts the proper way. How do you know if Crede had pulled his elbow in that it wouldn't have knicked his jersey or hit his rear forearm or hand? You keep saying it was "easily avoided" - your ump brotherhood is coming out there Rex. The pitch was well into the right handed batters box. That does not equate with "easily avoided". Second statement ... wait a minute. Froemming leaned on the rule book. Seems to me Crede wasn't going to get the benefit of the doubt, no matter what. Let's see what may have been going through Wendelstedt's mind: "Let's see ... umm ... Oakland pitchers have been plunking guys all three games, Sox pitchers haven't retailiated. Yup, let's give this Oakland pitcher the benefit of the doubt, get back in the box Crede." Of course I'm exaggerating to make a point, but the reality is this umpire made a judgement call which basically condoned what MLB warned the two teams about ... careless throwing inside. If he pitches well into the right handed batters box, after both teams have been warned probably by Froemming or Wendelstedt no less ... that's some funny "benefit of the doubt judgement" he's got there. Remind me to not go through yellow lights when the umpire fraternity is proceeding through the intersection. Rex ... fess up. You're going to give the benefit of the doubt to the umpires practically every time, I've seen you do this before. Fine, your right to do so. If we are guilty of White Sox fan bias, you are guilty of umpire fraternity bias. They are completely and utterly and maddeningly inconsistent, this crew in particular. Not to mention they got several big calls wrong, and their "judgement" clearly sided with the home team every time. Wendelstedt is in for some tough times now, I hope White Sox management is on his ass every time there's a hit by pitch he allows. He deserves it. Not to mention his bravado display of "I'm the boss" by issuing Crede his first career ejection. Crede himself was incredulous ... "For what? For what?" he asked. Wendelstedt held a grudge after ejecting Guillen and took it out on Crede. Unprofessional. I hope you are a better ump than that, I trust you are. Jim, while I respect your opinions on this board you are full of s*** on this one. We will never agree on the call and the details of it, so what. But if you really think that I am defending my "bretheren" then you are simply failing to understand the logic behind my comments. That's okay. We are beating a dead horse here so there is no reason to keep arguing the same points. But while my argument here is affected by my history as an umpire, it is not because I am defending the profession. I am simply letting you know what the situation was and how it is handled. If I felt the umpires were wrong, I would tell you so and I would tell you exactly why. Telling me that my judgement is clouded is failing to understand the issue itself, which you have clearly either failed to do or refused to do. Like I said, adults can have differing opinions and still respect one another, but in all honesty, the tone in your last post offended me somewhat. I am have seen baseball from all sides. From playing to coaching to umpiring to administration (all except for coaching at college level or above). I absolutely have a balanced perspective of the game. So let's agree or disagree, but try and lose the idea that I am being biased. Bias has nothing to do with all of this. Allow me to add that I do not believe (or hope not anyway) that you intended to offend me. But it was taken personally to a degree.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Apr 26, 2005 -> 04:41 PM) How about Cotts for Renyel Pinto? That would basically be swapping the same player. Pinto has a little better fastball and Cotts change is a little better. Neither have a great breaking ball. Both have command issues. I'd rather keep the guy that has already made it to the Majors. All that said, I did like Pinto's fastball when I saw him pitch last year.

QUOTE(JimH @ Apr 28, 2005 -> 04:39 AM) For the record, I was mad about the balk call but didn't disagree with it. Just as we can't assume Froemming/Wendelstedt haven't been consistent with this particular call, we also can't assume they have been consistent. Just as you've seen this call made, I've seen it 100 times not made (see: Fernando Vina). I question your use of the words "easily avoided" in terms of the pitch that hit Crede. It was thrown in the right handed batters box Rex. You are still looking at one context of the game (1-1 tie, 9th inning) and ignoring the fact that Oakland was throwing inside all series and this guy had just plunked Aaron Rowand, who stuck his butt out while turning around. That's ok, we can just agree to disagree there. I maintain it was an easy call for Wendelstedt to make because he's doing it against the road team. Notice I did not say the Chicago White Sox but rather the road team. Froemming is a hypocrite too, standing on the rule book. He's been around since 1971 and all he's doing is watching junior's back in this instance. Again, no way to prove it but if Froemming has made that exact same call - consistently - I will eat my hat. On Crede's ejection ... it was pretty clear what he said, a 4th grade lip reader could see he said "f***" and flung the bat. The next words out of his mouth were when he turned around, with his arms in the air, saying "For what?!?" ... questioning why he'd been ejected. Wendelstedt ejects him for saying "f***" and flinging his bat? That's ticky tack BS. Further, if Wendelstedt had rabbit ears to listen what Crede may have been muttering down the line, Wendelstedt is unprofessional. Rex ... do you not find it coincidental he makes this call against the White Sox, on a game where both teams have been warned about hitting guys? Very interesting time for him to make a "statement", as I said. Rowand turning his ass into a pitch could be construed in the same manner (trying to get hit). That didn't get called but hey, it was a different inning so things are called differently I guess. Wendelstedt should meet up with NHL official Kerry Fraser, where things aren't called by how they normally call it ... it's by the score or the point in the game. 1. Watch it again, he could have easily avoided it. Hell, he moved into it after reacting naturally to avoid it. 2. I said it before and will say so again. Crede's call had NOTHING to do with previous HPB's. It was a slow freaking curveball that he moved IN TO. 3. I covered your Rowand example in a previous post about rule interpretation. I didn't see Rowand's, but by your description, I would guess that it falls easily within the interpretation and precedent that has been set. 4. As far as Fernando Vina, once again I revert to an earlier post. A player rotating his body inward and getting caught on the meat of the arm above the elbow is not interpreted the same. It is not considered an overt attempt to get hit. I laugh at the thought that Vina has made the same overt action on 100 slow curve balls as Crede did. That particular situation just doesn't happen that often. It is interpreted differently than a guy getting nicked by an inside fastball or a harder breaking ball. Just not the same. 5. I just don't see the call as "making a statement" so I don't find it coincidental at all. Granted I wasn't there and I was not privy to every conversation involving the umpires the whole season. Then again, neither was anyone else here. 6. Perhaps Crede's ejection was quick. I don't know. He may have already told Crede to chill after the initial argument. The way he threw the bat certainly seemed to show up the umpire whether that was his intent or not. Again, without knowing every word that was said in the initial argument and in between that time and the ejection, I can't say whether it was justified or not. It may have been, or maybe not. Jim, we can agree to disagee here.... I know I am not going to change your mind. But you are also asking me to make some assumptions without having the full information. Sorry, but I won't do that.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Apr 28, 2005 -> 06:11 PM) It amazes me how you can judge Crede's intent by one play. Thank God our court system doesn't work that way. Does Crede's career HBP #'s suggest he would do this? No. Is Crede naturally an aggresive hitter? Yes. He more offen than not leans towards the plate when swinging the bat. Did the pitcher previously bean Rowand in the inning? Yes. IMO, as an umpire if you make such a questionable call with ignorance of the facts leading up to the play you are doing a dis-service to the game. Again I think those of us with umpire experience would agree that if this were say a pony league game & a guy beaned someone in the inning we would error on the side of the hitter & not the pitcher. I think anyone with half a baseball IQ can easily judge his intent there. Anyone who has played the game at any reasonably high level has probably done it or seen it done by a teammate. The amount of HBP's earlier in the game/series has nothing to do with the Crede situation. This was different. And those of "us" (me) who have umpires have made that call before. It happens quickly. The umpire does not have the benefit of seeing it replayed on TV 5 times. Sometimes you give the benefit of the doubt to a hitter, sometimes you don't. Hell, I have given the batter his base before and then immediately regretted making the call, knowing I should have gone the other way.

It has nothing to do with the amount of batters previously hit. It wasn't like Crede froze and just let it hit him. He made an effort to get hit on a slow curve ball that he could have easily avoided. I can't say that is a fair assumption because I don't know how often that play has come up. My guess is very rarely. But I have seen it called before at the MLB level, so it is NOT without precedent. That could be said for a lot of calls. If it were reversed most people here would be defending the call. I did see Crede's ejection and can't comment on it because I have no idea what Crede said after he was called back to the plate, what he may have said between that time and when he popped up and what he may have said after he popped up as he threw the bat. Without knowing that, how can you judge whether he was right or wrong in ejecting Crede. You can't. Many times a player says something that is not detected on TV and viewers at home or in the stands don't know the whole story. See above comment...... until I know specifically how they have ruled on a slow curveball in the past with a similar action by the batter, I can't judge nor will presume to know the answer. s***, I'm surprised this has gotten such a reaction. Hell, I thought the balk call on Marte the night before was much more controversial. Calling a balk on him there seemed to be splitting hairs. I looked hard for the balk and understand what they called, but it was borderline at most.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 28, 2005 -> 01:18 AM) Basically, you're saying that you think the ump is wrong, and while you will complete the game, if the president of the league decides that the ump was wrong (in the way you specified), the game will be restarted from the point of the blown call at some later time. If the protesting team wins, it's all thrown out the window. In little league it can be important, b/c the umps may actually be unclear about the rules. But in the majors it's very rare to see anything happen. The George Brett pine tar incident is the only example I can find. The reason it rarely ever happens in MLB is very simple. Protest cannot be made on a judgement call. They can only be made based on an incorrect interpretation of a rule. In the Majors you have four umpires on a crew. In a situation where a protest may be filed, the umpires will meet amongst themselves to make sure they agree on the call. It would be very rare that four MLB umpires would interpret a rule incorrectly. Even in the George Brett incident, the call was overturned only because there was no precedent for that particular situation. The umpires made the call based on what the rule said, but whoever reviewed the protest felt a different interpretation was in order. The call was overturned and the rule was rewritten to cover such a situation in the future. Think of it as the Supreme Court overturning a lower court's decision.

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Apr 28, 2005 -> 04:00 AM) It does matter how many of our batters are hit. How can it not? Because warnings are based on intent, not wildness. It's pretty simple actually. I have no idea what the situation behind the "warning" the Sox received. Perhaps they were warned because it was believed the Sox would retaliate (Everett's actions did nothing to think that mindset wasn't there)? Perhaps they heard someone say something that led them to believe that things were about to blow up? I have no idea.

QUOTE(JimH @ Apr 28, 2005 -> 03:47 AM) That umpire was not bright enough to take the whole game and series in context. Yes, he has to make a snap judgement on the spot. But he damn well knows Oakland pitchers have been pitching inside and plunking guys. After all, there were warnings before the game ... he is the guy who likely communicated with the managers before first pitch. The bigger issue is Wendelstedt will not make that call in any other inning. Hell, I doubt he makes that call again unless to prove a point. I wonder how many times he's made that call in the past (we don't know but my safe guess is zero, or very very few). Consistency? What consistency? I didn't know the umpires have a higher standard in certain innings vs. other innings. After all, Froemming was quick to stand on the rule book. I wonder where the rule book says they should do that??? To me, this is somehow being portrayed he showed guts by making the call. I think he showed a lack of guts by not wanting to deal with Macha, who would've argued the other side. Homer call, plain and simple. I disagree completely. I guarantee you the game situation was taken into context. You may not think Wendlestedt is very smart or even a very good umpire, but a guy does not get to the Majors and stay there on name alone. The evaluation process is too deep and goes through too many people for that. I mentioned in another post that umpires also use Interpretation books and Case Books to guide them. The rule book is actually very basic in many instances. As far as natural reaction. Jim, I've been there. I've been on both sides as the pitcher and hitter. Players think a lot more quickly than you may give them credit for. I have no doubt whatsoever that Crede's intent was to get hit. As far as how many times he or any other umpire has made that call is irrelevant. For one, there aren't that many times this happens. Players throw too hard now for a player to have enough time to react the way Crede did. A slow curve in that location is about the only time that will happen so blatantly. It is just not a frequent occurrence. I don't think it was a homer call at all. Just one man's opinion..........

QUOTE(Flash Tizzle @ Apr 27, 2005 -> 11:05 PM) Quoting an excerpt from Illini's post: Alright. So if the rules were to be properly enforced, NO ONE could reach first base as the result of a HBP unless they were squarely hit. Because if they stood still, regardless of the location of the pitch, it should be called a ball. This is a ridiculous rule. It's obviously never enforced, yet now it is? The thing most baseball fans don't understand that along with the Official Baseball Rulebook, umpires also have an Interpretation Book that is at least twice as thick, along with Case Books, which give specific examples of plays. Think of it like Case Law. There are precedents that have been set for certain rulings. There are interpretations of almost every rule that goes beyond the rule book itself. Umpires use all of these sources in their study/training. The interpretation for this rule is simple. For an HBP to be disallowed, the player must show intent to get hit by making a specific action. If he freezes and just stands there, that is not enough. A player naturally rotates his body toward the catcher on pitches inside. If a ball hits a player's elbow/tricep area when he is in that process he is given the benefit of the doubt. If he makes any other specific action trying to get hit by the pitch, the umpire makes the call as he did today. Is it ever overlooked? Sure. Just as many baseball rules are. Sometimes it just depends on the situation.