The 2010 MLB Season Thread

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

You hold the Phillies to 4 hits, you gotta win the game. Can't help but feel like they gave this one away. And now Werth goes yard, great.

Yea. I don't see how this doesn't go 7 now unless Lidge blows up here in the 9th.

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by kingfc22

Yea. I don't see how this doesn't go 7 now unless Lidge blows up here in the 9th.

Lidge once balked with the bases loaded this year...

[kingfc22]

Ugh. Stop shooting yourselves in the foot guys!

[Vince, Pt. II]

Have they mentioned who is starting game 6 for them, if necessary? Oswalt might not be lights out after yesterday.

[Dr. Sak]

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Have they mentioned who is starting game 6 for them, if necessary? Oswalt might not be lights out after yesterday.

Oswalt would start game 6. He only threw ten pitches or so in relief.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Have they mentioned who is starting game 6 for them, if necessary? Oswalt might not be lights out after yesterday.

He'll have the crowd and his record there this yr is disgusting. Giants will need the Sanchez who closed out the Pads to have a chance.

[RedKingGold]

Welp. Here we go.

[kingfc22]

Need to get the lead off man on.

BUT Panda will probably try to hard to atone for his error and up striking out

[Dr. Sak]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Welp. Here we go.

I don't know whether to piss myself or go blind

[RedKingGold]

Ballgame. Thank you Brad Lidge, circa 2008.

Now, let's get the Phillies the hell out of AT&T Park as possible. I want you guys boarding the plane from the dugout.

[Dr. Sak]

We still have life.

[kingfc22]

Welp. Two more chances.

[Comey]

One down, two more to go. Been a great series.

[kingfc22]

Originally Posted by Comey

One down, two more to go. Been a great series.

Indeed. The better team has one each game so far.

Should be fun on Saturday.

[AENeuman]

Bad call and big error did the giants in tonight. there goes my relaxing weekend...

[RedKingGold]

Phillies Post-Game is reporting that Halladay may have an injury issue which hurt his effectiveness tonight. Manuel's supposed to have more in the post-game press conference.

EDIT: Halladay sustained a minor groin pull in the second inning. Cholly felt it first hand.

[EagleFan]

There is no way the Giants fans can use that "bad call" as an excuse in this one. If their 3B steps on the bag it's a double play and the call goes the Giants way.

[RedKingGold]

There have been bad calls on both sides, it all evens out in the end and the better team will win (whether it be the Giants or the Phillies).

[kingfc22]

That call did not do the Giants in tonight. It was their shitty defensive effort and inability to get the key hit.

[kingfc22]

The two biggest plays of the game were Ruiz getting plunked when Lincecum was way ahead in the count and Sandoval not getting back to 3rd on the sac bunt.

[AENeuman]

I agree (saw it again at home, not in a bar ). it was a bad call, however the mental errors, 3b and 1b were the real killers.

[Vince, Pt. II]

That was a tough game to be in the stadium for. The Phillies beat the Giants the way the Giants have been beating everyone else all postseason: taking advantage of errors and bending, but not breaking, on the mound.

The Giants had plenty of chances all game long, and hung in long enough to keep you hoping...but it wasn't enough. Madson was freaking incredible in the 8th. It strikes me that he would make an incredible closer...

Now, back to CBP for the two-game finale. Giants still have the upper hand, but I'm not exactly comfortable with this.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

There is no way the Giants fans can use that "bad call" as an excuse in this one. If their 3B steps on the bag it's a double play and the call goes the Giants way.

I didn't see most of the game, but I did see a play in the first inning that looked like a blown call to me.

Utley flubs the grounder, closing the glove on top of the ball and leaving it behind while chasing the runner back toward first with an empty glove, then turning around, picking the ball up, and throwing it to second for the force and the second out of the inning.

Shouldn't that have been obstruction on Utley under rule 7.06? He was preventing the runner from advancing to the next base without possession of the ball.

If I'm reading that rule correctly, and it were applied correctly, the Giants would have had runners on first and second with one out and a run scored, not a runner on first with two out.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

There is no way the Giants fans can use that "bad call" as an excuse in this one. If their 3B steps on the bag it's a double play and the call goes the Giants way.

This. A thousand times this. It was a fortuitous break that Pablo screwed up.

[Vince, Pt. II]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

I didn't see most of the game, but I did see a play in the first inning that looked like a blown call to me.

Utley flubs the grounder, closing the glove on top of the ball and leaving it behind while chasing the runner back toward first with an empty glove, then turning around, picking the ball up, and throwing it to second for the force and the second out of the inning.

Shouldn't that have been obstruction on Utley under rule 7.06? He was preventing the runner from advancing to the next base without possession of the ball.

If I'm reading that rule correctly, and it were applied correctly, the Giants would have had runners on first and second with one out and a run scored, not a runner on first with two out.

Since you brought this to my attention earlier, I've been thinking about it. I think since the runner stopped before he fielded the ball, he's in the clear. Attempting to avoid an easy DP, the runner stopped before the ball was (not) fielded. Therefore, Utley didn't prevent the runner from advancing, the runner prevented himself from advancing (since he stopped first). At least, if I were an ump or MLB trying to defend a no-call, that's what I'd argue.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Since you brought this to my attention earlier, I've been thinking about it. I think since the runner stopped before he fielded the ball, he's in the clear. Attempting to avoid an easy DP, the runner stopped before the ball was (not) fielded. Therefore, Utley didn't prevent the runner from advancing, the runner prevented himself from advancing (since he stopped first). At least, if I were an ump or MLB trying to defend a no-call, that's what I'd argue.

The thing is, he stopped to avoid running into the tag, but retreated when Utley was chasing him, sans ball.

Utley didn't have the right to the basepath, and by his actions was impeding the runner's ability to advance to the next base.

Especially since a runner at liability to be put out was trailing in that case. If Utley chases the guy all the way back to first without the ball, the batter-runner is being forced out in a situation where he otherwise would not have been.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

The thing is, he stopped to avoid running into the tag, but retreated when Utley was chasing him, sans ball.

Utley didn't have the right to the basepath, and by his actions was impeding the runner's ability to advance to the next base.

Especially since a runner at liability to be put out was trailing in that case. If Utley chases the guy all the way back to first without the ball, the batter-runner is being forced out in a situation where he otherwise would not have been.

Still not obstruction since therunner is the one that made the decision to stop. If he keeps running and runs into Utley then an arguement can be made but there is still a major grey area since everything happened in the legal act of fielding the ball. That would be like saying a catcher should be called for obstruction because he dropped the throw home when blocking the plate on a play.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

Madson was freaking incredible in the 8th. It strikes me that he would make an incredible closer...

That's been tried but he doesn't have the head for it. It seems that he psyches himself out when he is in a closer role. It's almost like he needs the safety net of knowing that he just has to get it to where he hands it off to the closer.

He had been tried as a starter before as well but doesn't have a starter's mentality either (maybe he holds back too much to not tire himself out too quickly). It seems that he has found his place in the 8th inning and the problems come if he strays too far from that.

[Karlifornia]

Gonna be tough to win one in CBP, now that the Giants have the Phillies full attention.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Still not obstruction since therunner is the one that made the decision to stop. If he keeps running and runs into Utley then an arguement can be made but there is still a major grey area since everything happened in the legal act of fielding the ball. That would be like saying a catcher should be called for obstruction because he dropped the throw home when blocking the plate on a play.

See, that's where I quibble. I don't think "everything" happened in the legal act of fielding the ball. To me, the legal act of fielding the ball ended the minute he began to pursue the runner. At that point, he has ceased to be in the act of attempting to make a play.

Rule 2.00 backs me up on this:

Originally Posted by MLB rulebook

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: If an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

Once the player has made the attempt and failed, he is no longer "in the act."

Rule 2.00 makes it a judgment call as to whether or not obstruction occurred, but it also makes it quite clear that, by definition, Utley had no legal right to be in the path of the runner once he missed the ball.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

See, that's where I quibble. I don't think "everything" happened in the legal act of fielding the ball. To me, the legal act of fielding the ball ended the minute he began to pursue the runner. At that point, he has ceased to be in the act of attempting to make a play.

Rule 2.00 backs me up on this:



Once the player has made the attempt and failed, he is no longer "in the act."

Rule 2.00 makes it a judgment call as to whether or not obstruction occurred, but it also makes it quite clear that, by definition, Utley had no legal right to be in the path of the runner once he missed the ball.

But it was a continuation play. The runner had already stopped before he started to go after him and at that point once Utley saw that he didn't have the ball he went back to get it while the runner continued back toward first.

This is not close to the example of diving for the ball and purposely staying there to obstruct the runner after the ball got past you.

An even better example of this would be a throw to second on a steal attempt that gets past the fielder that is covering. The initial tangle is not interference but it only becomes interference if the fielder then purposely tries to hold the runner down. There needs to be perceived intent to interfere.

If the runner tried to go to second and Utley just stood there in his way, then it becomes interference.

[SackAttack]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

But it was a continuation play. The runner had already stopped before he started to go after him and at that point once Utley saw that he didn't have the ball he went back to get it while the runner continued back toward first.

This is not close to the example of diving for the ball and purposely staying there to obstruct the runner after the ball got past you.

I went back and watched the video. He took fewer steps than I recalled (although in my defense I've been loopy on cold medicine all day).

The example in rule 2.00 is not meant to be all-inclusive, for what that's worth.

But the step-and-a-half Utley took instead of the 4 or 5 I was thinking he took doesn't rise to the level of obstruction.

Objection withdrawn.

[Dr. Sak]

Gutsy effort by Doc!

Halladay Fights Through Injury to Keep Phils Alive

[sovereignstar v2]

Thought this was really cool. It's a heatmpa of Mariano Rivera's pitches. Hopefully this hasn't been posted yet.

Replacement Level Yankees Weblog

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Gonna be tough to win one in CBP, now that the Giants have the Phillies full attention.

Meh...I'm betting the G-men's bats wake up in game 6. The Giants should go back to Rowand in CF, Renteria at SS, Uribe at 3B. I don't understand the why you would put Sandoval and Torres back in there just because they got on base a couple times. Torres still looks like my grandmother up there. He's a guaranteed out, if he's not walked. Put the guys in that are least likely to make an error, and let the 2-7 batters do what they've done all year. Sanchez will give 7 or 8 innings giving up zero earned, and Oswalt will be thrown out of whack because of the extra live game time.

[Vince, Pt. II]

While Renteria doesn't make errors, he also doesn't get to a ton of balls. Pablo has looked dramatically better at the plate recently, and I much prefer Uribe + Pablo to Uribe + Renteria. I also think that Torres is a huge defensive upgrade over Rowand, and the offensive upside of Torres is much higher than Rowand, even though Andres has been pretty awful lately.

[Sun Tzu]

Originally Posted by Vince, Pt. II

While Renteria doesn't make errors, he also doesn't get to a ton of balls. Pablo has looked dramatically better at the plate recently, and I much prefer Uribe + Pablo to Uribe + Renteria. I also think that Torres is a huge defensive upgrade over Rowand, and the offensive upside of Torres is much higher than Rowand, even though Andres has been pretty awful lately.

I'm speaking strictly about performance in the last few weeks. Torres is slumping as hard as any player on the roster has slumped all year. Rowand is laying off of balls in the dirt and making solid contact in nearly every at bat. Torres may have fantastic range in CF, but he's a rally killer in cleats at the plate right now. No reason to have a guy like that in the lineup, I don't care who you are or how well you did during the season.

Sandoval has played two games this postseason, and made two throwing errors that extended innings. His goof in the 3rd inning not knowing where he was on the field in relation to the base was something that's inexcusable in minor league ball, let alone the MLB playoffs. I can't remember the last time Renteria had three major gaffs in a month, let alone in 10 days.

[Comey]

Originally Posted by SackAttack

See, that's where I quibble. I don't think "everything" happened in the legal act of fielding the ball. To me, the legal act of fielding the ball ended the minute he began to pursue the runner. At that point, he has ceased to be in the act of attempting to make a play.

Rule 2.00 backs me up on this:



Once the player has made the attempt and failed, he is no longer "in the act."

Rule 2.00 makes it a judgment call as to whether or not obstruction occurred, but it also makes it quite clear that, by definition, Utley had no legal right to be in the path of the runner once he missed the ball.

I'm really not sure which post to quote, since I'm not discussing this...but as we're discussing the fielding, I thought I'd bring this up (I don't know if it already was).

What Sandoval did when Rollins stole third in the seventh (fake tag) was obstruction as well. It wasn't called because Rollins was getting the bag anyway, but those plays are generally frowned upon by players because of the possibility of getting hurt on the slide (this comes from a book I read, at least).

Why Sandoval even bothered with a fake tag is beyond me. I really can think of no reason for him to have even attempted that.

[mauchow]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

That wasn't even close to an out. Glad the Yanks got screwed.

I nearly said the same thing but I knew they'd show it in super slow-mo like they have with everything else this post season.. and it shows he was out. Good call, but probably not something the ump SAW in all honesty.

[Comey]

Originally Posted by mauboy1

I nearly said the same thing but I knew they'd show it in super slow-mo like they have with everything else this post season.. and it shows he was out. Good call, but probably not something the ump SAW in all honesty.

This.

[mauchow]

holy shit, yankees baseball is pretty much the worst baseball to watch, EVER.

it is absolutely UNBEARABLE to watch them. it's the bottom of the 4th, two outs and a runner on first but they're acting as if it's the bottom of the 9th with how long it takes with each pitch.

[Vince, Pt. II]

How the hell do you miss that call? Jeez, umps are freaking awful this season.

[Scoobz0202]

That is fucking horrible. Bring on the fucking robots.

[mauchow]

Originally Posted by HiFiRevival

How do the umps continually fuck up these easy calls?

It's not like the batter went down as if he got hit.................

[Scoobz0202]

Originally Posted by mauboy1

It's not like the batter went down as if he got hit.................

and had an obvious showing of pain on his face. Nahhhhhhh