almagest

Cleveland fans chanting "You're a traitor" to Thome. Classy bunch.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 08:52 PM) People can hate Uribe all they want and he did fan 3 times in the opener, but he's been seeing as many pitches per at bat as anyone else. I think he will have a good year. Yeah, a single on a pitch at shoulder level in the 8th inning of a 6-1 ball game after looking terrible in his first two at-bats changes everything.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 07:47 PM) Sure. But, Uribe is no different than that Ozzie Guillen guy who played for us. He swung at everything too. It's early in the season and Uribe can sure enough provide some punch at times. I don't see how you can make that statement. Uribe has been one of the worst starting players offensively in MLB for the past couple years. Guillen was pretty bad, too, but he was able to put up an OPS close to what Uribe's has been, while never hitting more than 4 home runs in a year.

QUOTE(elrockinMT @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 07:42 PM) Settle down on Uribe. he will get his butt kicked in the dugout I hope. Ramirez the so called Cuban missle keeps swinging away and Thome grounded into 2 DP's. Let's trade them all. Yeah, see, the difference is, Uribe does this ALL the time. Thome is a HOF-caliber player, and Ramirez is a rookie who is pretty obviously overmatched at this point.

Uribe is just bad. I know we know this already, but sweet jesus. BAD.

Hooray for Crede. Single up the middle, AJ scores after the wild pitch brought him to second. 2-1 Cleveland.

QUOTE(witesoxfan @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 12:35 PM) Havy is the manz!!1!!!1!1!!! Anderson better start or I'm going to donkeypunch someone. Now that's dedication... you'd even go boink some dude, then punch him in the back of the head, just to express your anger over Ozzie's poor decision-making. I applaud you, good sir.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 10:39 AM) This isn't the NFL. If interference is called, it has nothing to do with whether Thome would have been safe or not. Its not like the ball had to be catchable deal in football. If you smash him with your leg, there is still a little doubt whether it was intentional or not, even though umpires and everyone know its the runner's job to take the guy out. Grabbing him or flailing your arms give no doubt. If he didn't call it, Wedge would have been out arguing, just like if it was the other way around, Ozzie would have been out there arguing it should have been interference, Hawk too. Maybe that's the way the umpires interpret the rule, but that just doesn't make sense to me. The word "interfere" has a pretty non-ambiguous meaning, and I don't see how Cabrera was interfering with any possible play. I still feel it was a poor judgment call, especially in the context of this game.

QUOTE(Disco72 @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 09:23 AM) XM-related question for those with the satellite radio... Can you listen to MLB games online? My wife uses the XM radio in the car (she travels alot for work), and at the end of last season, I couldn't seem to find MLB games on the list of channels you can listen to on XM's website. It appears that I'll have to buy a second radio to use at home. You can buy a full-season radio pass on mlb.com for like $15. It covers all games for all teams, and there are no blackouts. I do it every year so I can listen to games while downtown at work, because radio reception here is awful. I don't think you can get games on XM for this reason.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Apr 2, 2008 -> 10:00 AM) It was also "accepted in MLB for many years that if the ball beat the runner, the runner was out, pretty much no matter where the tag was. That has changed. The only problem I have with the 3 calls that went against the White Sox on Monday was the play at the plate, because the umpire made up his mind that Crede was out before the play occurred. It is not acceptable to grab an infielder when they are turning a DP. That's going to get called every time. Even Ozzie said it was the correct call. The play at first was tough for the umpire to see. It was hard to see with a better angle in slow motion. The argument that is used that Cabrera had the base, therefore no interference should be called is a weak one. If there was a pop up right over second and a runner was standing on second, he wouldn't be allowed to shove the fielder out of the way or grab him so he couldn't make the play. Hate to keep getting dragged into this, but why is it ok to smash into a player with your legs or body, but not okay to grab his leg? The point was made earlier in this thread that if Cabrera had been turned around, and ran into Peralta with his legs, nothing would've been called. And I'm still not sure how grabbing someone's leg(s) is going to hinder a throw. I also don't think anyone is arguing about Cabrera. I think the argument is that Thome had first base no matter what happened at second, and you can't hinder a non-existent play.

QUOTE(Athomeboy_2000 @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 03:19 PM) I was thinking the same thing. MOST people slide hands first and flare out the feet. He did the opposite. Different look, same result. I'd probably rather have someone try to grab my legs anyway, than try to sweep my legs out from under me with theirs. Much less risk of injury, and it seems like all you'd have to do with a hand or two on your legs is, oh I don't know, step forward and throw anyways? It's not like someone's arm is going to be able to hold your legs back very well.

Going to see Explosions in the Sky today. Pretty excited.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 12:20 PM) The umpire doesn't have to judge that the play (throwing to first for a dp) would have been successful. The act of starting to throw is part of the play, even though the play probably wouldn't have worked out, and Cabrera interfered with that. Done, apply the penalty. (It was Peralta, btw -- I think I made that mistake earlier.) I'm done. Even Ozzie has said that it was a good call. It was, it's done, and it's time to worry about the next game and bogus AF trade reports. K. Agree to disagree.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 10:01 AM) Except it's not hyperbole. If we say that any runner who's touching the base should not be called out for interference, that's carte blanche. If you can't grab the guy, then we have to throw that argument out and draw a finer distinction. Barfield was pivoting to throw and was cocking his arm when Cabrera reached out. The facts that he didn't make a throw and might not have made a throw are irrelevant. Even Guillen has said that the ump made the correct call. As for personal attacks, I haven't attacked you once. You're just livid that I can't see the clear shining light of your rightness. (SO NOW YOU'RE USING LOTS OF CAPS -- VERY CONVINCING!) Deal with it. So if Barfield didn't make a throw, what play was Cabrera interfering with? Look, I'm not disagreeing that Cabrera was grabbing for Barfield. That's obvious, and under most any other circumstance, I'd be in total agreement with you. But the rule states that interference occurs when "a runner is adjudged to have hindered a fielder who is attempting to make a play on a batted ball." There was no play to be made, as Thome was safe no matter what, Barfield did not throw the ball, and Cabrera's grab did not prevent Barfield from throwing it. I also didn't say that any runner touching a base has the ability to do whatever he pleases to a fielder. Not sure where you're getting that. I just don't see how you can hinder a non-existent play. The caps were to emphasize certain parts of my claim, not as a response to your inability to see my "clear shining light of rightness."

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 01:00 AM) Wrong. There was nothing inconsistent, as there were important differences between the two plays. Like leg-grabbing. I don't know what you mean by "precedence", but I don't think I'm being so vehement. I just think he got that call completely right. I disagree. I feel the take-down of Cabrera was going a little too far, and could've resulted in a serious injury. Since both plays had no effect on the first base runner anyway, I feel that if you're going to call interference for grabbing someone's leg, you should also call it for going after an opposing player when there's no reason to. By "precedence," I mean that you don't see interference plays come up in baseball very often, and the ones you do see are usually blatantly obvious, like A-Rod screaming "I got it!" to try to prevent a pop-up from being caught. And no, I don't think that either play involving Cabrera were obviously interference.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 12:50 AM) No, actually it's not. 'I justify X using Y, but if Y has absurd implications, my argument is still valid. Because I really, really want it to be.' Considering the implications of an argument is just basic logic. As for "debating", I'll assume you don't mean formal debate, because if you ever encountered it even a little, you'd know that taking arguments to their extremes (and to the cynic, beyond) is maybe the most basic tactic. Lord knows what you do mean. Taking an argument that you don't agree with, or don't understand, and hyperbolizing it to the point of absurdity is intellectually dishonest, and shouldn't/wouldn't be accepted as a valid point in any formal debate. Also, I'm not quite sure who's posts you've been reading, but nowhere do I state that grabbing for a defensive player in any capacity is not possible interference. I state, quite simply, that since it is not EXPLICITLY defined in the rules as an interfering action, it is up to the umpire to determine if a player is interfering with a play or not. And since this is a judgment call, it's reasonable to assume that the umpire would make a sound judgment, given that he's a professional with years of experience. And sound reasoning would seem to indicate that you can't interfere with a play THAT DOES NOT EXIST, such as a throw to first base to retire Thome, since NO ATTEMPT TO MAKE A THROW WAS MADE, NOR WOULD SAID PROBABLE THROW HAVE HAD ANY EFFECT on Thome being safe or out. Therefore, the umpire made a poor judgment call. The fact that we can't change the outcome of the play because of this poor judgment call is immaterial to this argument. My second point is that IF you are going to insist on saying that the umpire's judgment is the right call, and is irrefutable on both plays involving Cabrera, then he's establishing a precedent that HAS NOT EXISTED previously in MLB, and has given no prior warning of any changes. I would think that MLB holds its umpires to a higher standard than making decisions based on how they're feeling at the time. If you don't agree, I'd love to hear why, but with actual evidence this time, instead of putting words in my mouth, or absurd hyperbole, or personal attacks. I'd really like to have a reasonable discussion, and I'm sorry if anything I've said seemed out of line. I've read lots of other posts by you, and I respect your opinions, but I just don't see how you can hold your position on this one.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 12:29 AM) No, you were arguing that interference that doesn't change the outcome shouldn't count: "...any umpire using *proper* reasoning would see that Cabrera's grab had no effect on the play whatsoever. I don't see how you can judge that to be interference..." I was pointing out that it should count as interference, according to the rules (and that's beside the fact that your judgement is really pointless, here). Don't try to change the history. This is true; it shouldn't. I'm not changing history as I still support this point. But *if* you're going to claim that Cabrera's play counts as interference, then make a consistent ruling about it. Which this umpire did not, based on what happened earlier in the game. Anyways, what's with the vehement defense of the second base ump, especially since this call honestly does *not* have precedence in MLB?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 12:22 AM) And, actually, yeah, there IS a need to take arguments to the logical extreme. If they fall apart, then they obviously weren't phrased well in the first place. If someone argues that you can do whatever you want as long as you touch the bag, it's worth asking if that's reasonable. Sorry, but that's completely incorrect, and shows you know little about debating.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 12:12 AM) All he has to do is hinder a fielder who is attempting to make a play. The rules don't make an exception when the play he's attempting to make wouldn't happen anyway. It's a penalty for the infraction and should be enforced regardless. The terrible call just before should have nothing to do with it either way. No one's arguing what the rule says. We can read. We're arguing that the ump made a poor judgment call, based on previous events in this game, in previous seasons, and based on the events of the play. If the penalty should be enforced regardless, and the rules don't make an exception, then there should be consistency.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Apr 1, 2008 -> 12:04 AM) It doesn't really matter why. There's an interpretation that everyone knows and understands. Just as the strike zone that was called for years and is still more-or-less called doesn't correspond to the 'book' strike zone. Hey, maybe that lost us the game, too. Let's complain! It's accepted everywhere that a normal slide with the spikes down is fine as long as you can touch the bag. But for interference to have some meaning, you can't toss the guy around just because you're close to the base, as much as Hawk and DJ would like for the rule to mean that just for tonight. Suddenly, all Sox fans want to be strict constructionist legal scholars about it. The official rules don't explicitly mention thigh-grabbing!!! Hawk and DJ are ridiculous homers (as well as terrible announcers). If you go by their standard, a runner should be able to bear hug a fielder who's attempting to make a throw, as long as he's on the base. You really buy that? And the funny thing is, if we're being strict about it, there's nothing besides the ump's judgement that matters, anyway. Whatever he thinks intent means, it means. Either way, the Sox have no case. So what about the play earlier in the game, when Cabrera was bowled over for no apparent reason? Was that interference? Seems by your definition, and the umpire's, it would be. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect consistency from a Major League umpire, nor do I think it's unreasonable to expect that he demonstrate good judgement. Also, there's no need to exaggerate, nor is there a need for straw man arguments. No one's claiming that a bear hug is not interference, no one is claiming that strike zones are inaccurate (pretty sure Questec shows the umps are like 96% accurate anyway), no one is claiming that Cabrera tried to toss anyone around (did you even SEE the play?!) nor is anyone claiming that Hawk and DJ are right about anything. I didn't even hear what they said, since I usually mute the game anyway.

QUOTE(Whitewashed in '05 @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 11:45 PM) I read the first page of the thread, but couldn't find anything about what the three bad calls were. Since I missed the game, can anyone give me a recap? Thanks 1. AJ was ruled out at 1B on a grounder, when it was clear that Garko was at least 4 inches off first base when he caught the throw, and didn't tag AJ. This likely cost us a run. 2. Crede ruled out at home with bags loaded on grounder to Peralta. The throw home was awful, and the catcher was 6 inches + away from the plate, and obviously did not tag Crede. This cost us a run, and possibly more. 3. Thome hit a possible double play ball to short, but there ended up being no play at first. Cabrera tried to grab the Barfield's legs, was ruled out on interference, and Thome was as a result of this call as well. Ended the inning, and cost us at least one run. This is the most debatable of the three calls, as Cabrera *did* grab for Barfield's legs, but the rule does state that it's a judgment call, and seeing as how there was no chance of getting Thome at first, I don't know how Cabrera was interfering with anything.

QUOTE(iamshack @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 11:46 PM) If you look at the rule, it doesn't matter if there was going to be a play on the batter or not. When there are less than two outs, and the umpire rules the runner interfered with the fielder, the umpire is supposed to call both the runner and the batter out. Exactly. It's a judgment call. And any umpire using *proper* reasoning would see that Cabrera's grab had no effect on the play whatsoever. I don't see how you can judge that to be interference, especially after a terrible call was *just* made against us right before this. There was also no discussion of the play with any other umpires, either.

QUOTE(JFields27 @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 11:33 PM) Honestly .. The more and more it hits me after this game I get more pissed Crede is still here. It would have been so nice to see Josh Fields in that lineup and see what he would do. Its almost like I feel bad he has to miss out on this because of Crede, its weird but its just games being taken away from him, but "oh go try and hit the fastball and field better in the minors." I dont know, damn, I havent been here since the end of the game and its still hurtin me I agree. I would've liked to see Fields out there, though I don't know if he would've been any more successful against Sabathia than Crede was. I also feel the same way about Brian Anderson starting in CF, and Ozuna starting at 2B.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 11:24 PM) So, how's about we just don't whine about it and swallow our medicine? It was beyond pathetic how Joe Buck bawled like a infant over every close call that went the Sox way in the 2005 playoffs. It depresses me that Sox fans are similarly mewling endlessly about how they were like totally robbed in that one game etc etc etc. There were some bad calls. Fine, let it go. Who's whining? I could understand your point of view if they were bang-bang plays that could've gone either way, but at least two were bad calls which completely changed the complexion of the game, and that's unacceptable by a umpire judging calls at the highest level. I've always felt that if you notice the umpires, they're generally doing something wrong. I also don't understand that mentality, "swallow your medicine." How about "stand up for yourself when something is blatantly unfair?" What's wrong with that? Maybe it won't get you anywhere, but it's better than being a passive pussy. QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 11:24 PM) As for the interference call, it really doesn't matter. If the player tries to interfere, the runner should be called out. If there was no play, well, then the interfering runner f***ed up. Not the ump. That was the proper call, and I'm tired of hearing all these excuses. That play was called like slides at second have always been called, and suddenly we're all complaining about it. You want to break up the play, you slide hard with your body while still able to touch the base, you're fine. You start using your arms to grab the fielder or slap at the ball, you're not fine anymore. It's not that complicated. I agree Cabrera was completely in the wrong, and this shouldn't even be an issue. But it is fairly obvious that Thome was going to be safe no matter what, so how was Cabrera interfering with a possible play at first in any way?

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 08:48 PM) Speaking for myself, not Beast, I think the harm is that it makes Sox fans look like little whiny b****es. I actually think it makes us look worse if we *don't* express our displeasure over at least two terrible, game-changing calls. I think sending a letter to the MLB is far more constructive than whining about it on a messageboard, as well. Also, in regards to the Cabrera play... I agree it was interference, but there was no play on Thome at first anyway. Nothing Cabrera did influenced that. Why, therefore, should Thome be called out? Judgment call or not, that's poor umpiring.