almagest

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.

After the second inning, I about gave up on the game. Once someone told me Thome hit another home run, I started keeping tabs again. And it felt like a playoff game to me the rest of the way. With most everything conspiring against the Sox, they almost pulled out the win, and that's pretty incredible, especially given how this team would lay down and die last year.

QUOTE(The Beast @ Mar 31, 2008 -> 08:26 PM) No thanks. What do you think a message board is for, then? And what's the harm in someone spending 5 or 10 minutes writing a letter to MLB about something that bothers him? Even if it doesn't accomplish anything, at the least it'll make the person who wrote it feel better. I really don't understand your angle here.

I wonder if we can protest this game?

Looks like the Uribe we all know and love is back, based on the Civil Rights game, and his 0-2 2K performance today.

Last year, those probably would've been solo shots.

Sure, the guy with a 1.261 career WHIP and a career ERA+ 5 points below Roy Halladay, 7 above C.C. Sabathia and Josh Beckett, and 7 points behind Carlos Zambrano isn't a top of the rotation starter. And sure, the extra runs from today carry over to tomorrow, so we're already losing that game, too! I think some of you people are bipolar or something. Take some lithium.

QUOTE(TheBigHurt @ Mar 30, 2008 -> 09:37 PM) We've seen Joe play GG caliber third base much through his career, and especially 05-06. I'd call that more than just "above average." Comparing a current Josh Fields to a healthy Joe Crede defensively is no comparison from what I've seen. And since the return of his DL stint in '05, the time he has been healthy he has been hitting very well. How exactly are you determining "GG caliber" defense? Joe Crede has never lead the league in any major defensive category. Brandon Inge has usually been at the top of the AL in important categories like range factor. Crede is usually 4th or 5th. Check baseball-reference.com and compare defensive stats if you don't believe me. So, it it doesn't look like your using statistics. Crede has also never actually won a gold glove, so it can't be that. Sounds to me like you're going solely on your opinion, which probably makes Joe Crede feel better but doesn't actually offer any real proof whatsoever. Also, as I (and many others) have said before, Joe has exactly 1 full above-average offensive major league season. The rest are below average. He also had a terrible spring. What, then, makes you think he'll produce anything but a mediocre/poor offensive season this year? Also, Crede was not that good defensively when he first came up. He improved. Why can't Fields?

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 29, 2008 -> 08:07 PM) wasn't really impressed with Contreras today. He didn't have much, if anything, on the ball, and threw basically a lot of junk, IMO. At least he threw strikes. He scared the crap out of me today, much like he did in pretty much any game I've seen him pitch since 2004. Good games included. The forkball WAS working well today, and he located the fastball when he needed to, however. I'm much more worried about the offense. Dye, Crede, and Uribe looked absolutely lost at the plate, and Swisher looked pretty bad. Those 4 guys, who figure to be pretty big parts of our offense, were automatic outs today. I think our pitching is going to be decent, but we're not going to be able to score 1-3 runs like we did in 2005 and win. We'll need consistent offensive production.

QUOTE(WilliamTell @ Mar 27, 2008 -> 01:22 AM) Unfortunately in some things it's a struggle being friends, we've both changed a lot in 4 years. I think that's a better sign than any that this is probably a lost cause. If its a struggle being friends, it's going to be an even bigger struggle trying to date her. Save yourself lots of trouble and move on.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Mar 27, 2008 -> 12:42 PM) I actually feel the same way about Raymond Fiests Magician/Riftwar books. If you havent already, you should check them out. Starting with "Magician:Apprentice" Very good books, though I don't know if I'd put them on the same level as LotR.

Finally saw The Darjeeling Limited. I liked it, though not nearly as much as I liked The Life Aquatic. Probably because there wasn't enough Bill Murray.

Just picked up Rogue Galaxy for PS2 and MLB Power Pros for Wii for $20 each. Also subscribed to GameFly. Seems like a good decision so far, though the first game I rented, Mario & Sonic Olympics, sucks hard.

QUOTE(Mplssoxfan @ Mar 26, 2008 -> 05:24 PM) I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that there may have been a little alcohol involved. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that there may have been a little "I'm going to murder my wife now" involved.

QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 26, 2008 -> 05:56 PM) Because Cowards have seen what several of their kin have done across the country, and with the added bonus of instant fame due to tv and the internet it seems like the best option. Unfortunately, this is absolutely right. Look at all the copycats shooting up high schools after Columbine. These kids should be getting even the American Way -- by getting super rich and buying their enemies out.