Discussion:
As expected, MLB takes the chickenshit way out...
(too old to reply)
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 01:37:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.

Braves' protest denied in record time, and Selig bunkers down, hoping
that this all gets swept under the rug very quickly. Pathetic.

http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=321005115
Tom
2012-10-06 02:05:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.
Braves' protest denied in record time, and Selig bunkers down, hoping
that this all gets swept under the rug very quickly.  Pathetic.
http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=321005115
So what? That one bad call in an otherwise impeccably called game had
far less impact on the outcome than the Braves three errors.

There's no way MLB was going to overrule the umpire's call. It would
throw the entire playoff schedule into chaos.

Tom
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 02:11:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Tom, ***@aol.com]
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:05:51 -0700 (PDT)]

: So what? That one bad call in an otherwise impeccably called game had
: far less impact on the outcome than the Braves three errors.

This kind of rationalization is always such nonsense that it astounds me
that anyone with enough neurons firing to type and activate a computer
ever tries to whip it out in place of an actual logical argument.
Tom
2012-10-06 02:19:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:05:51 -0700 (PDT)]
: So what? That one bad call in an otherwise impeccably called game had
: far less impact on the outcome than the Braves three errors.
This kind of rationalization is always such nonsense that it astounds me
that anyone with enough neurons firing to type and activate a computer
ever tries to whip it out in place of an actual logical argument.
So, you're saying the three errors had no impact on the the game?

Tom
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 02:27:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Tom, ***@aol.com]
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:19:58 -0700 (PDT)]

:
: On Oct 5, 9:11 pm, Antonio Veranos <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > [Tom, ***@aol.com]
: > [Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:05:51 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : So what? That one bad call in an otherwise impeccably called game had
: > : far less impact on the outcome than the Braves three errors.
: >
: > This kind of rationalization is always such nonsense that it astounds me
: > that anyone with enough neurons firing to type and activate a computer
: > ever tries to whip it out in place of an actual logical argument.
:
: So, you're saying the three errors had no impact on the the game?

That's not at all what I wrote. The errors of the players don't
mitigate the errors of the umpiring crew in any way, shape or form.

It's extraordinarily dishonest to suggest that bad calls are okay based
on the fact that the team they screw over also made errors, had chances
to overcome the umpiring errors, etc.
J.C. Watts
2012-10-06 02:34:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:19:58 -0700 (PDT)]
: > [Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:05:51 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : So what? That one bad call in an otherwise impeccably called game had
: > : far less impact on the outcome than the Braves three errors.
: >
: > This kind of rationalization is always such nonsense that it astounds me
: > that anyone with enough neurons firing to type and activate a computer
: > ever tries to whip it out in place of an actual logical argument.
: So, you're saying the three errors had no impact on the the game?
That's not at all what I wrote.  The errors of the players don't
mitigate the errors of the umpiring crew in any way, shape or form.
It's extraordinarily dishonest to suggest that bad calls are okay based
on the fact that the team they screw over also made errors, had chances
to overcome the umpiring errors, etc.
Tom, let my introduce you to Antonio Veranos...aka Anthony
Summers...aka Bryan Slick.

He's fishing because he wants to argue with you...call you dumb...and
act all indignant.

Those of us who have been putting up with him for 15 years or so have
learned to ignore him. Your life will be better for it if you follow
my simple advice.
B.S.S.
2012-10-06 02:37:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[J.C. Watts, ***@charter.net]
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:34:45 -0700 (PDT)]

: Those of us who have been putting up with him for 15 years or so have
: learned to ignore him. Your life will be better for it if you follow
: my simple advice.

It's amusing watching your hypocrisy in action, Enslin.

(It's not surprising, mind you... but it is very amusing, indeed.)
J.C. Watts
2012-10-06 02:39:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by B.S.S.
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:34:45 -0700 (PDT)]
: Those of us who have been putting up with him for 15 years or so have
: learned to ignore him.  Your life will be better for it if you follow
: my simple advice.
It's amusing watching your hypocrisy in action, Enslin.
Wow...*another* account? Must really have to go through great lengths
to get people to continue to read you huh....
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 02:43:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[J.C. Watts, ***@charter.net]
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:39:49 -0700 (PDT)]

: > : Those of us who have been putting up with him for 15 years or so have
: > : learned to ignore him.  Your life will be better for it if you follow
: > : my simple advice.
: >
: > It's amusing watching your hypocrisy in action, Enslin.
:
: Wow...*another* account?

Nope, just replied from RSB without noticing until the message appeared
in RSFC. I figured you'd try the above, though... your predictability
continues on schedule. Sad.

It's funny to watch what happens to you when you get put in your place
for being the utter rampaging hypocrite you are, Enslin. Keep it up.
Tom
2012-10-06 03:01:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J.C. Watts
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:19:58 -0700 (PDT)]
: > [Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:05:51 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : So what? That one bad call in an otherwise impeccably called game had
: > : far less impact on the outcome than the Braves three errors.
: >
: > This kind of rationalization is always such nonsense that it astounds me
: > that anyone with enough neurons firing to type and activate a computer
: > ever tries to whip it out in place of an actual logical argument.
: So, you're saying the three errors had no impact on the the game?
That's not at all what I wrote.  The errors of the players don't
mitigate the errors of the umpiring crew in any way, shape or form.
It's extraordinarily dishonest to suggest that bad calls are okay based
on the fact that the team they screw over also made errors, had chances
to overcome the umpiring errors, etc.
Tom, let my introduce you to Antonio Veranos...aka Anthony
Summers...aka Bryan Slick.
He's fishing because he wants to argue with you...call you dumb...and
act all indignant.
Those of us who have been putting up with him for 15 years or so have
learned to ignore him.  Your life will be better for it if you follow
my simple advice.
We've got a guy in the Cardinals NG named Roy Leiberman who's a major
PIA. There's also a guy in the Cubs NG who fits the bill as well...
Jeffrey Allsip, a.k.a. Asslips.

I guess every NG has one.

I figured he was trolling because he complained about the Cardinals
being undeserving of the WS title last year and made vague references
to bad calls, but couldn't provide any specifics.

Thanks!

Tom
Mr. N.A.Cho
2012-10-06 03:11:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
Post by J.C. Watts
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:19:58 -0700 (PDT)]
: > [Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:05:51 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : So what? That one bad call in an otherwise impeccably called game had
: > : far less impact on the outcome than the Braves three errors.
: >
: > This kind of rationalization is always such nonsense that it astounds me
: > that anyone with enough neurons firing to type and activate a computer
: > ever tries to whip it out in place of an actual logical argument.
: So, you're saying the three errors had no impact on the the game?
That's not at all what I wrote.  The errors of the players don't
mitigate the errors of the umpiring crew in any way, shape or form.
It's extraordinarily dishonest to suggest that bad calls are okay based
on the fact that the team they screw over also made errors, had chances
to overcome the umpiring errors, etc.
Tom, let my introduce you to Antonio Veranos...aka Anthony
Summers...aka Bryan Slick.
He's fishing because he wants to argue with you...call you dumb...and
act all indignant.
Those of us who have been putting up with him for 15 years or so have
learned to ignore him.  Your life will be better for it if you follow
my simple advice.
We've got a guy in the Cardinals NG named Roy Leiberman who's a major
PIA. There's also a guy in the Cubs NG who fits the bill as well...
Jeffrey Allsip, a.k.a. Asslips.
I guess every NG has one.
I figured he was trolling because he complained about the Cardinals
being undeserving of the WS title last year and made vague references
to bad calls, but couldn't provide any specifics.
Thanks!
Tom- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
tread lightly, he's The Moderator and holds up the Standards and
Morality hoop that all RSFCers must jump through.
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 03:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Mr. N.A.Cho, ***@mail.com]
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 20:11:05 -0700 (PDT)]

: tread lightly, he's The Moderator and holds up the Standards and
: Morality hoop that all RSFCers must jump through.

You carry a lingering butthurt like nobody's business, Pauli.

Amazing, really.
Mr. N.A.Cho
2012-10-06 03:15:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 20:11:05 -0700 (PDT)]
: tread lightly, he's The Moderator and holds up the Standards and
: Morality hoop that all RSFCers must jump through.
You carry a lingering butthurt like nobody's business, Pauli.
Amazing, really.
please don't ban me Mr. Moderator.
Tom
2012-10-06 02:41:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:19:58 -0700 (PDT)]
: > [Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:05:51 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : So what? That one bad call in an otherwise impeccably called game had
: > : far less impact on the outcome than the Braves three errors.
: >
: > This kind of rationalization is always such nonsense that it astounds me
: > that anyone with enough neurons firing to type and activate a computer
: > ever tries to whip it out in place of an actual logical argument.
: So, you're saying the three errors had no impact on the the game?
That's not at all what I wrote.  The errors of the players don't
mitigate the errors of the umpiring crew in any way, shape or form.
Sorry, I must not have made my point clearly. I didn't mean to imply
the players' errors excuse the umpires errors. However, it's a
baseball truism that a team can't allow a bad call to affect their
play. They're supposed to overcome those things, unfortunate thought
they may be. Had the errors not happened, the Braves would've been
much closer to a different outcome.
Post by Antonio Veranos
It's extraordinarily dishonest to suggest that bad calls are okay based
on the fact that the team they screw over also made errors, had chances
to overcome the umpiring errors, etc.
I didn't say the bad call was ok... I think the umpiring in both
leagues all season long was abysmal. There should be some form of...
discipline, for lack of a better word... for umpires who consistently
make bad calls. Three bad calls and they're suspended for five games,
or something like that.

I'm saying the bad call is the one thing in the game beyond the Braves
control. Good fielding was within their control. There's no way we'll
really ever know if that call would've affected the outcome of the
game.

It's things like this that make baseball so much better than other
sports...

Tom
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 02:49:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Tom, ***@aol.com]
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:41:42 -0700 (PDT)]

:
: On Oct 5, 9:27 pm, Antonio Veranos <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > [Tom, ***@aol.com]
: > [Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:19:58 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > :
: > : On Oct 5, 9:11 pm, Antonio Veranos <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : > [Tom, ***@aol.com]
: > : > [Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:05:51 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : >
: > : > : So what? That one bad call in an otherwise impeccably called game had
: > : > : far less impact on the outcome than the Braves three errors.
: > : >
: > : > This kind of rationalization is always such nonsense that it astounds me
: > : > that anyone with enough neurons firing to type and activate a computer
: > : > ever tries to whip it out in place of an actual logical argument.
: > :
: > : So, you're saying the three errors had no impact on the the game?
: >
: > That's not at all what I wrote.  The errors of the players don't
: > mitigate the errors of the umpiring crew in any way, shape or form.
:
: Sorry, I must not have made my point clearly. I didn't mean to imply
: the players' errors excuse the umpires errors. However, it's a
: baseball truism that a team can't allow a bad call to affect their
: play. They're supposed to overcome those things, unfortunate thought
: they may be. Had the errors not happened, the Braves would've been
: much closer to a different outcome.

Ah, alrighty. As Jon Enslin demonstrated with his ad hominem reply in
the middle of this thread, I'm rather accustomed to dealing with quite a
significant amount of intellectual dishonesty from some, particularly a
few knuckleheads like him (dusted with massive hypocrisy in his case).
Ever since the guy got pantsed rather thoroughly a while ago, he's been
on a bit of a minor rampage from time to time. It's cute, ultimately
ineffectual - much like Enslin himself - but dealing with the pattern
over time tends to build up a templated response. I know better, but
sometimes I still fall prey to the temptation... a thousand pardons!

I don't think that the Braves allowed the call to affect their play, for
what it's worth. The blown IFR call was so late that they really could
not reasonably overcome it, though they made a good stab at doing so.

: > It's extraordinarily dishonest to suggest that bad calls are okay based
: > on the fact that the team they screw over also made errors, had chances
: > to overcome the umpiring errors, etc.
:
: I didn't say the bad call was ok... I think the umpiring in both
: leagues all season long was abysmal. There should be some form of...
: discipline, for lack of a better word... for umpires who consistently
: make bad calls. Three bad calls and they're suspended for five games,
: or something like that.

I often wonder if there is in fact some sort of discipline of which we
never hear, not being privy to what goes on behind MLB's closed doors.

: I'm saying the bad call is the one thing in the game beyond the Braves
: control. Good fielding was within their control. There's no way we'll
: really ever know if that call would've affected the outcome of the
: game.

Indeed. It was very sad to see the best defensive team in baseball
shoot themselves in the feet like that... three times, no less... and
the first one from Chipper Jones himself, during his last game.

: It's things like this that make baseball so much better than other
: sports...

Indeed.
Jim Brown
2012-10-06 15:33:14 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:41:42 -0700 (PDT)]
: > [Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:19:58 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : > [Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:05:51 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : >
: > : > : So what? That one bad call in an otherwise impeccably called game had
: > : > : far less impact on the outcome than the Braves three errors.
: > : >
: > : > This kind of rationalization is always such nonsense that it astounds me
: > : > that anyone with enough neurons firing to type and activate a computer
: > : > ever tries to whip it out in place of an actual logical argument.
: > : So, you're saying the three errors had no impact on the the game?
: >
: > That's not at all what I wrote.  The errors of the players don't
: > mitigate the errors of the umpiring crew in any way, shape or form.
: Sorry, I must not have made my point clearly. I didn't mean to imply
: the players' errors excuse the umpires errors. However, it's a
: baseball truism that a team can't allow a bad call to affect their
: play. They're supposed to overcome those things, unfortunate thought
: they may be. Had the errors not happened, the Braves would've been
: much closer to a different outcome.
Ah, alrighty.  As Jon Enslin demonstrated with his ad hominem reply in
the middle of this thread, I'm rather accustomed to dealing with quite a
significant amount of intellectual dishonesty from some, particularly a
few knuckleheads like him (dusted with massive hypocrisy in his case).
Ever since the guy got pantsed rather thoroughly a while ago, he's been
on a bit of a minor rampage from time to time.  It's cute, ultimately
ineffectual - much like Enslin himself - but dealing with the pattern
over time tends to build up a templated response.  I know better, but
sometimes I still fall prey to the temptation... a thousand pardons!
An entire paragraph about Enslin and how he got pantsed? The lady
doth protest too much.
J.C. Watts
2012-10-06 15:49:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:41:42 -0700 (PDT)]
: > [Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:19:58 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : > [Fri, 5 Oct 2012 19:05:51 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : >
: > : > : So what? That one bad call in an otherwise impeccably called game had
: > : > : far less impact on the outcome than the Braves three errors.
: > : >
: > : > This kind of rationalization is always such nonsense that it astounds me
: > : > that anyone with enough neurons firing to type and activate a computer
: > : > ever tries to whip it out in place of an actual logical argument.
: > : So, you're saying the three errors had no impact on the the game?
: >
: > That's not at all what I wrote.  The errors of the players don't
: > mitigate the errors of the umpiring crew in any way, shape or form.
: Sorry, I must not have made my point clearly. I didn't mean to imply
: the players' errors excuse the umpires errors. However, it's a
: baseball truism that a team can't allow a bad call to affect their
: play. They're supposed to overcome those things, unfortunate thought
: they may be. Had the errors not happened, the Braves would've been
: much closer to a different outcome.
Ah, alrighty.  As Jon Enslin demonstrated with his ad hominem reply in
the middle of this thread, I'm rather accustomed to dealing with quite a
significant amount of intellectual dishonesty from some, particularly a
few knuckleheads like him (dusted with massive hypocrisy in his case).
Ever since the guy got pantsed rather thoroughly a while ago, he's been
on a bit of a minor rampage from time to time.  It's cute, ultimately
ineffectual - much like Enslin himself - but dealing with the pattern
over time tends to build up a templated response.  I know better, but
sometimes I still fall prey to the temptation... a thousand pardons!
An entire paragraph about Enslin and how he got pantsed?  The lady
doth protest too much.
Yeah, this is pretty much how that thread went:

B: The Big Ten should not keep its name. Those that believe in
"branding" should be eaten by wolves

J: As someone who is involved in marketing, I think they should have
kept it

B: Fundraising isn't marketing.

J: I do more than fundraising and in fact have lead workshops in
athletic branding

<delete thread>

Laughable.
B.S.S.
2012-10-06 16:28:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[J.C. Watts, ***@charter.net]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 08:49:56 -0700 (PDT)]

: B: Fundraising isn't marketing.
:
: J: I do more than fundraising and in fact have lead workshops in
: athletic branding
:
: <delete thread>
:
: Laughable.

You're simply a liar, Enslin. If you hadn't tried, repeatedly, to turn
that thread into a flamewar, then it could have been the discussion
you're trying to portray it as now. You couldn't resist trying to look
down your nose, though, and you really couldn't handle not being in
control of the situation. Now you lie about it... not really
surprising, given other demonstrations of your utter lack of integrity.
J.C. Watts
2012-10-06 17:14:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by B.S.S.
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 08:49:56 -0700 (PDT)]
: B: Fundraising isn't marketing.
: J:  I do more than fundraising and in fact have lead workshops in
: athletic branding
: <delete thread>
: Laughable.
You're simply a liar, Enslin.  If you hadn't tried, repeatedly, to turn
that thread into a flamewar, then it could have been the discussion
you're trying to portray it as now.  You couldn't resist trying to look
down your nose, though, and you really couldn't handle not being in
control of the situation.  Now you lie about it... not really
surprising, given other demonstrations of your utter lack of integrity.
Not only are you a chikenshit pussy, but you are a lying chickenshit
pussy.

Figures.
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 17:24:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[J.C. Watts, ***@charter.net]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:14:22 -0700 (PDT)]

: > : B: Fundraising isn't marketing.
: > :
: > : J:  I do more than fundraising and in fact have lead workshops in
: > : athletic branding
: > :
: > : <delete thread>
: > :
: > : Laughable.
: >
: > You're simply a liar, Enslin.  If you hadn't tried, repeatedly, to turn
: > that thread into a flamewar, then it could have been the discussion
: > you're trying to portray it as now.  You couldn't resist trying to look
: > down your nose, though, and you really couldn't handle not being in
: > control of the situation.  Now you lie about it... not really
: > surprising, given other demonstrations of your utter lack of integrity.

: Not only are you a chikenshit pussy, but you are a lying chickenshit
: pussy.
:
: Figures.


You really should try honesty sometime, Jon... if only for the novelty.

After you tried to lie your way out of a mess in the past, I changed my
settings such that posts and replies are sent to email. Good thing...


Post 1 (Thread-Starter, Summers): "Idiots. 'Brand equity'. This is the
sort of dumb shit that happens when you let marketing morons dictate
policy.

Article cited: ESPN - Big East won't change name, brand equity cited"

Post 2 (Reply, Enslin): Good decision by the conference. Good thing
Slick isn't in marketing.

Post 3 (Reply, Lundstedt): "Dubm decision, they could sell more t-shirts
if they rebranded. I'll bet it's just so they don't have to repaint
their fields."

Post 4 (Reply, Summers): "I get the rationale, Enslin; I disagree with
it. The brand of "Big East" isn't nearly strong enough to justify the
stupidity on display above. Don't strain so hard to show your Nowledge
that you ignore common sense. It's a stupid decision."

Post 5 (Reply, Enslin): "I know it is hard for you not to pretend to be
an expret in everything."

Enslin yet again trying to take a thread personal. I'm not interested
in such bickering, but don't particularly want to block anyone, either.
So, I wipe the thread and hope that he will either behave like an adult
in the next iteration or leave it alone. Re-posted a bit later...


Post 1 (Thread-Starter, Summers): "Idiots. 'Brand equity'. This is the
sort of dumb shit that happens when you let marketing morons dictate
policy.

Article cited: ESPN - Big East won't change name, brand equity cited"

Post 2 (Reply, Enslin): "Maybe you don't know exactly all that I do at
UWW. Maybe you didn't know that I have actually done conference
presentations on the importance of brand equity in college athletics.
But keep digging. This fun to watch."


More nonsense trying to start a personal back-and-forth in public. I'm
not interested in it, and wipe the thread again. While deciding whether
or not to bother with it again, as it seems clear that Enslin is in a
mood to start a fight in which I have exactly zero interest, I sent him
a PM explaining the deletion of the thread (and his replies, therefore).

In said PM conversation, he continued rampaging, name-calling, swearing,
and generally behaving like a complete hypocrite as per usual of late...
serious anger issues in play, it seems. I hope, at least, that it's
only online and not affecting offline interactions with others. *shrug*
J.C. Watts
2012-10-06 17:29:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:14:22 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : B: Fundraising isn't marketing.
: > : J:  I do more than fundraising and in fact have lead workshops in
: > : athletic branding
: > : <delete thread>
: > : Laughable.
: >
: > You're simply a liar, Enslin.  If you hadn't tried, repeatedly, to turn
: > that thread into a flamewar, then it could have been the discussion
: > you're trying to portray it as now.  You couldn't resist trying to look
: > down your nose, though, and you really couldn't handle not being in
: > control of the situation.  Now you lie about it... not really
: > surprising, given other demonstrations of your utter lack of integrity.
: Not only are you a chikenshit pussy, but you are a lying chickenshit
: pussy.
: Figures.
You really should try honesty sometime, Jon... if only for the novelty.
After you tried to lie your way out of a mess in the past, I changed my
settings such that posts and replies are sent to email.  Good thing...
Post 1 (Thread-Starter, Summers): "Idiots.  'Brand equity'.  This is the
sort of dumb shit that happens when you let marketing morons dictate
policy.
Article cited: ESPN - Big East won't change name, brand equity cited"
Post 2 (Reply, Enslin): Good decision by the conference.  Good thing
Slick isn't in marketing.
Post 3 (Reply, Lundstedt): "Dubm decision, they could sell more t-shirts
if they rebranded. I'll bet it's just so they don't have to repaint
their fields."
Post 4 (Reply, Summers): "I get the rationale, Enslin; I disagree with
it. The brand of "Big East" isn't nearly strong enough to justify the
stupidity on display above. Don't strain so hard to show your Nowledge
that you ignore common sense. It's a stupid decision."
Post 5 (Reply, Enslin): "I know it is hard for you not to pretend to be
an expret in everything."
Enslin yet again trying to take a thread personal.  I'm not interested
in such bickering, but don't particularly want to block anyone, either.
So, I wipe the thread and hope that he will either behave like an adult
in the next iteration or leave it alone.  Re-posted a bit later...
Post 1 (Thread-Starter, Summers): "Idiots.  'Brand equity'.  This is the
sort of dumb shit that happens when you let marketing morons dictate
policy.
Article cited: ESPN - Big East won't change name, brand equity cited"
Post 2 (Reply, Enslin): "Maybe you don't know exactly all that I do at
UWW. Maybe you didn't know that I have actually done conference
presentations on the importance of brand equity in college athletics.
But keep digging. This fun to watch."
Exactly. You ended *two* threads when I showed you were wrong.

Thanks for bringing this back. Didn't know you could do that. Made
you look even more the sniveling weenie.
B.S.S.
2012-10-06 17:33:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[J.C. Watts, ***@charter.net]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT)]

: Exactly. You ended *two* threads when I showed you were wrong.

No, I ended two threads which you tried to make into personal
bickerfests, and I told you precisely why I did so. It's only your ego
which tells you otherwise, Enslin. You really should get over yourself.

The idea that there's objective right or wrong in that debate is itself
quite amusing, as is your desperate idea that your childish ad hominems
had nothing at all to do with the discontinuation of said threads.

If you had behaved like an adult in either discussion, and simply
disagreed without acting out and trying to make a thread about the
posters rather than the content for the 5,000th time, it'd have been no
different than any other thread. You can't do that, though... sad.
J.C. Watts
2012-10-06 22:01:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by B.S.S.
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:29:49 -0700 (PDT)]
: Exactly.  You ended *two* threads when I showed you were wrong.
No, I ended two threads which you tried to make into personal
bickerfests, and I told you precisely why I did so.  It's only your ego
which tells you otherwise, Enslin.  You really should get over yourself.
The idea that there's objective right or wrong in that debate is itself
quite amusing, as is your desperate idea that your childish ad hominems
had nothing at all to do with the discontinuation of said threads.
If you had behaved like an adult in either discussion, and simply
disagreed without acting out and trying to make a thread about the
posters rather than the content for the 5,000th time, it'd have been no
different than any other thread.  You can't do that, though... sad.
I'm sure you are typing something here, but all I see is "cluck,
cluck, cluck" and a bunch of feathers flying around.
Jim Brown
2012-10-06 17:31:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:14:22 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : B: Fundraising isn't marketing.
: > : J:  I do more than fundraising and in fact have lead workshops in
: > : athletic branding
: > : <delete thread>
: > : Laughable.
: >
: > You're simply a liar, Enslin.  If you hadn't tried, repeatedly, to turn
: > that thread into a flamewar, then it could have been the discussion
: > you're trying to portray it as now.  You couldn't resist trying to look
: > down your nose, though, and you really couldn't handle not being in
: > control of the situation.  Now you lie about it... not really
: > surprising, given other demonstrations of your utter lack of integrity.
: Not only are you a chikenshit pussy, but you are a lying chickenshit
: pussy.
: Figures.
You really should try honesty sometime, Jon... if only for the novelty.
After you tried to lie your way out of a mess in the past, I changed my
settings such that posts and replies are sent to email.  Good thing...
Post 1 (Thread-Starter, Summers): "Idiots.  'Brand equity'.  This is the
sort of dumb shit that happens when you let marketing morons dictate
policy.
Article cited: ESPN - Big East won't change name, brand equity cited"
Post 2 (Reply, Enslin): Good decision by the conference.  Good thing
Slick isn't in marketing.
Post 3 (Reply, Lundstedt): "Dubm decision, they could sell more t-shirts
if they rebranded. I'll bet it's just so they don't have to repaint
their fields."
Post 4 (Reply, Summers): ">
Post 1 (Thread-Starter, Summers): "Idiots.  'Brand equity'.  This is the
sort of dumb shit that happens when you let marketing morons dictate
policy.
Article cited: ESPN - Big East won't change name, brand equity cited"
Post 2 (Reply, Enslin): "Maybe you don't know exactly all that I do at
UWW. Maybe you didn't know that I have actually done conference
presentations on the importance of brand equity in college athletics.
But keep digging. This fun to watch."
More nonsense trying to start a personal back-and-forth in public.  I'm
not interested in it, and wipe the thread again.  While deciding whether
or not to bother with it again, as it seems clear that Enslin is in a
mood to start a fight in which I have exactly zero interest, I sent him
a PM explaining the deletion of the thread (and his replies, therefore).
In said PM conversation, he continued rampaging, name-calling, swearing,
and generally behaving like a complete hypocrite as per usual of late...
serious anger issues in play, it seems.  I hope, at least, that it's
only online and not affecting offline interactions with others. *shrug*
ODL...you didn't make much of a case with this poast.


"I get the rationale, Enslin; I disagree with
Post by Antonio Veranos
it. The brand of "Big East" isn't nearly strong enough to justify the
stupidity on display above. Don't strain so hard to show your Nowledge
that you ignore common sense. It's a stupid decision."
Post 5 (Reply, Enslin): "I know it is hard for you not to pretend to be
an expret in everything."
Enslin yet again trying to take a thread personal. I'm not interested
in such bickering, but don't particularly want to block anyone, either.
So, I wipe the thread and hope that he will either behave like an adult
in the next iteration or leave it alone. Re-posted a bit later..."
The above in particular....are you telling us that you don't see where
you started the insult war with things like "stupidity on display
above" and "Dont strain so hard to show your nowlege" ??


This is very typical Bryan Slick MO. You do and have done the same
with a dozen other posters, and cried foul each and every time.


Let.
It.
Drop.
Already.
B.S.S.
2012-10-06 17:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Jim Brown, ***@yahoo.com]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:31:50 -0700 (PDT)]

: The above in particular....are you telling us that you don't see where
: you started the insult war with things like "stupidity on display
: above" and "Dont strain so hard to show your nowlege" ??

Stupidity by the Big East, not Enslin, as is obvious to anyone without
an agenda to push. *chuckle*
Tarkus
2012-10-06 04:23:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
It's things like this that make baseball so much better than other
sports...
Wow.
Tom
2012-10-06 18:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
It's things like this that make baseball so much better than other
sports...
Wow.
The discussion, the back and forth, trying to figure out what might
have happened if the call went the other way, wondering why the Braves
couldn't score with bases loaded and two out...

Does that make more sense?

Tom
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 18:29:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Tom, ***@aol.com]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 11:25:55 -0700 (PDT)]

: > > It's things like this that make baseball so much better than other
: > > sports...
: >
: > Wow.
:
: The discussion, the back and forth, trying to figure out what might
: have happened if the call went the other way, wondering why the Braves
: couldn't score with bases loaded and two out...
:
: Does that make more sense?

Officiating errors never make anything better, intrigue or not.

The discussion is interesting, sure... but I'd be quite content to do
without the errors... and I'm eager to see the introduction of as much
technology as is required to put a stop to them as much as possible.
Your smrat ®
2012-10-06 11:16:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Tom
There's no way MLB was going to overrule the umpire's call. It would
throw the entire playoff schedule into chaos.
Regardless of the outcome this is a real black eye for MLB. Hopefully
this convinces them to settle the strike quickly and get rid of the
replacement umpires. The integrity of the game is at stake.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2012-10-06 14:49:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 02:37:23 +0100, Antonio Veranos
Post by Antonio Veranos
...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.
How was it misapplied?

Hugh
Joe Schmoe
2012-10-06 16:09:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 02:37:23 +0100, Antonio Veranos
Post by Antonio Veranos
...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.
How was it misapplied?
Hugh
It was misapplied because the rule says the infield fly rule is "for the
benefit of the runners." The umpire made the call a second before the
ball hit the ground in a situation when none of the runners was in
jeopardy of being doubled up. Bad call, but not nearly as bad a the
concept of a one-game playoff series.
B.S.S.
2012-10-06 16:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Joe Schmoe, ***@bellsouth.net]
[Sat, 06 Oct 2012 12:09:43 -0400]

: >> ...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
: >> judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.
: >
: > How was it misapplied?
: >
: > Hugh
:
: It was misapplied because the rule says the infield fly rule is "for the
: benefit of the runners." The umpire made the call a second before the
: ball hit the ground in a situation when none of the runners was in
: jeopardy of being doubled up. Bad call, but not nearly as bad a the
: concept of a one-game playoff series.

It also wasn't made immediately, as the rule states it should be.
Seapig
2012-10-06 17:01:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 02:37:23 +0100, Antonio Veranos
Post by Antonio Veranos
...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.
How was it misapplied?
Hugh
It was misapplied because the rule says the infield fly rule is "for the
benefit of the runners."  The umpire made the call a second before the
ball hit the ground in a situation when none of the runners was in
jeopardy of being doubled up.  Bad call, but not nearly as bad a the
concept of a one-game playoff series.
People who know the game better than I do have been all over the TV
saying the call was correct. Harold Reynolds, for one, who spent over
a decade playing in the infield in the big leagues, and knows a thing
or two about how the infield fly rule is called. The problem is with
how the rule is written, not how it was applied.

And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games.
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 17:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:01:38 -0700 (PDT)]

: And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
: should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games

Even if that's true, mentioning it in this context seems like an attempt
to mitigate the fact that they got hosed in the playoff, which is of
course utter nonsense. I really wish that people would stop writing
such stuff about officiating mistakes; it's intellectually dishonest.
Seapig
2012-10-06 17:20:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:01:38 -0700 (PDT)]
: And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
: should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games
Even if that's true, mentioning it in this context seems like an attempt
to mitigate the fact that they got hosed in the playoff, which is of
course utter nonsense.  I really wish that people would stop writing
such stuff about officiating mistakes; it's intellectually dishonest.
It might seem that way if somebody snipped the paragraph where I
talked about the fact that they didn't get hosed. THAT would be
intellectually dishonest. I'm starting to think that there might be
something to all the horrible things people are saying about you.
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 17:27:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:20:38 -0700 (PDT)]

: > : And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
: > : should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games
: >
: > Even if that's true, mentioning it in this context seems like an attempt
: > to mitigate the fact that they got hosed in the playoff, which is of
: > course utter nonsense.  I really wish that people would stop writing
: > such stuff about officiating mistakes; it's intellectually dishonest.
:
: It might seem that way if somebody snipped the paragraph where I
: talked about the fact that they didn't get hosed. THAT would be
: intellectually dishonest. I'm starting to think that there might be
: something to all the horrible things people are saying about you.

They *did* get hosed in the playoff, though... that's taken as read.
The misapplication of the IFR killed a rally late in the game.
Seapig
2012-10-06 17:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:20:38 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
: > : should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games
: >
: > Even if that's true, mentioning it in this context seems like an attempt
: > to mitigate the fact that they got hosed in the playoff, which is of
: > course utter nonsense.  I really wish that people would stop writing
: > such stuff about officiating mistakes; it's intellectually dishonest.
: It might seem that way if somebody snipped the paragraph where I
: talked about the fact that they didn't get hosed.  THAT would be
: intellectually dishonest.  I'm starting to think that there might be
: something to all the horrible things people are saying about you.
They *did* get hosed in the playoff, though... that's taken as read.
The misapplication of the IFR killed a rally late in the game.
Former MLB umpires and infielders are on my TV saying that the rule
was properly applied. That trumps whatever disgruntled Braves fans on
my computer have to say.
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 17:52:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:47:53 -0700 (PDT)]

: > : > Even if that's true, mentioning it in this context seems like an attempt
: > : > to mitigate the fact that they got hosed in the playoff, which is of
: > : > course utter nonsense.  I really wish that people would stop writing
: > : > such stuff about officiating mistakes; it's intellectually dishonest.
: > :
: > : It might seem that way if somebody snipped the paragraph where I
: > : talked about the fact that they didn't get hosed.  THAT would be
: > : intellectually dishonest.  I'm starting to think that there might be
: > : something to all the horrible things people are saying about you.
: >
: > They *did* get hosed in the playoff, though... that's taken as read.
: > The misapplication of the IFR killed a rally late in the game.
:
: Former MLB umpires and infielders are on my TV saying that the rule
: was properly applied. That trumps whatever disgruntled Braves fans on
: my computer have to say.

The announcers on the game destroyed the call, as have numerous pundits
since then. It was incorrect, period, and I haven't seen anyone other
than Joe Torre and others within MLB trying to defend the errant call.

I *have* seen a number of people on television saying since then that
the appeal could not be upheld due to the nature of the error, with the
idea being that it was a judgement call... but that isn't at all the
same thing as saying that the call itself was correct, which it wasn't.
Seapig
2012-10-06 18:31:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:47:53 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : > Even if that's true, mentioning it in this context seems like an attempt
: > : > to mitigate the fact that they got hosed in the playoff, which is of
: > : > course utter nonsense. I really wish that people would stop writing
: > : > such stuff about officiating mistakes; it's intellectually dishonest.
: > : It might seem that way if somebody snipped the paragraph where I
: > : talked about the fact that they didn't get hosed. THAT would be
: > : intellectually dishonest. I'm starting to think that there might be
: > : something to all the horrible things people are saying about you.
: >
: > They *did* get hosed in the playoff, though... that's taken as read.
: > The misapplication of the IFR killed a rally late in the game.
: Former MLB umpires and infielders are on my TV saying that the rule
: was properly applied.  That trumps whatever disgruntled Braves fans on
: my computer have to say.
The announcers on the game destroyed the call, as have numerous pundits
since then.  It was incorrect, period, and I haven't seen anyone other
than Joe Torre and others within MLB trying to defend the errant call.
I *have* seen a number of people on television saying since then that
the appeal could not be upheld due to the nature of the error, with the
idea being that it was a judgement call... but that isn't at all the
same thing as saying that the call itself was correct, which it wasn't.
I don't know if you have access to MLB Network, but Harold Reynolds
gave the best explanation I've seen. The "call it immediately" part
of the rule doesn't mean call it right off the bat, it means (and
says) call it immediately when it seems apparent that it will be an
Infield Fly. It's not an Infield Fly (the capitalization comes from
the rule book) unless an infielder can catch it with ordinary effort,
so the umpire doesn't call it until it becomes apparent that the
infielder can do so. That's why the umpire didn't call it until the
SS started settling under the ball (which, as it turned out, was right
before he pulled away from the ball). That's the way MLB umpires do
it - Reynolds showed a clip of a similar play from the regular season,
and the umpire handled it there the same way he did last night.
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 18:44:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 11:31:07 -0700 (PDT)]

:
: On Oct 6, 10:52 am, Antonio Veranos <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > [Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
: > [Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:47:53 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : > : > Even if that's true, mentioning it in this context seems like an attempt
: > : > : > to mitigate the fact that they got hosed in the playoff, which is of
: > : > : > course utter nonsense. I really wish that people would stop writing
: > : > : > such stuff about officiating mistakes; it's intellectually dishonest.
: > : > :
: > : > : It might seem that way if somebody snipped the paragraph where I
: > : > : talked about the fact that they didn't get hosed. THAT would be
: > : > : intellectually dishonest. I'm starting to think that there might be
: > : > : something to all the horrible things people are saying about you.
: > : >
: > : > They *did* get hosed in the playoff, though... that's taken as read.
: > : > The misapplication of the IFR killed a rally late in the game.
: > :
: > : Former MLB umpires and infielders are on my TV saying that the rule
: > : was properly applied.  That trumps whatever disgruntled Braves fans on
: > : my computer have to say.
: >
: > The announcers on the game destroyed the call, as have numerous pundits
: > since then.  It was incorrect, period, and I haven't seen anyone other
: > than Joe Torre and others within MLB trying to defend the errant call.
: >
: > I *have* seen a number of people on television saying since then that
: > the appeal could not be upheld due to the nature of the error, with the
: > idea being that it was a judgement call... but that isn't at all the
: > same thing as saying that the call itself was correct, which it wasn't.
:
: I don't know if you have access to MLB Network, but Harold Reynolds
: gave the best explanation I've seen. The "call it immediately" part
: of the rule doesn't mean call it right off the bat, it means (and
: says) call it immediately when it seems apparent that it will be an
: Infield Fly. It's not an Infield Fly (the capitalization comes from
: the rule book) unless an infielder can catch it with ordinary effort,
: so the umpire doesn't call it until it becomes apparent that the
: infielder can do so. That's why the umpire didn't call it until the
: SS started settling under the ball (which, as it turned out, was right
: before he pulled away from the ball). That's the way MLB umpires do
: it - Reynolds showed a clip of a similar play from the regular season,
: and the umpire handled it there the same way he did last night.

I haven't seen Reynolds' explanation, no.

Having said that, the lack of "ordinary effort" is self-evident. At no
point was either player camped under the ball.

The implementation of the Infield Fly Rule was incorrect in this case,
and no amount of rationalization to forestall controversy changes that.
Seapig
2012-10-06 18:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 11:31:07 -0700 (PDT)]
: > [Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:47:53 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : > : > Even if that's true, mentioning it in this context seems like an attempt
: > : > : > to mitigate the fact that they got hosed in the playoff, which is of
: > : > : > course utter nonsense. I really wish that people would stop writing
: > : > : > such stuff about officiating mistakes; it's intellectually dishonest.
: > : > : It might seem that way if somebody snipped the paragraph where I
: > : > : talked about the fact that they didn't get hosed. THAT would be
: > : > : intellectually dishonest. I'm starting to think that there might be
: > : > : something to all the horrible things people are saying about you.
: > : >
: > : > They *did* get hosed in the playoff, though... that's taken as read.
: > : > The misapplication of the IFR killed a rally late in the game.
: > : Former MLB umpires and infielders are on my TV saying that the rule
: > : was properly applied.  That trumps whatever disgruntled Braves fans on
: > : my computer have to say.
: >
: > The announcers on the game destroyed the call, as have numerous pundits
: > since then.  It was incorrect, period, and I haven't seen anyone other
: > than Joe Torre and others within MLB trying to defend the errant call.
: >
: > I *have* seen a number of people on television saying since then that
: > the appeal could not be upheld due to the nature of the error, with the
: > idea being that it was a judgement call... but that isn't at all the
: > same thing as saying that the call itself was correct, which it wasn't.
: I don't know if you have access to MLB Network, but Harold Reynolds
: gave the best explanation I've seen.  The "call it immediately" part
: of the rule doesn't mean call it right off the bat, it means (and
: says) call it immediately when it seems apparent that it will be an
: Infield Fly.  It's not an Infield Fly (the capitalization comes from
: the rule book) unless an infielder can catch it with ordinary effort,
: so the umpire doesn't call it until it becomes apparent that the
: infielder can do so.  That's why the umpire didn't call it until the
: SS started settling under the ball (which, as it turned out, was right
: before he pulled away from the ball).  That's the way MLB umpires do
: it - Reynolds showed a clip of a similar play from the regular season,
: and the umpire handled it there the same way he did last night.
I haven't seen Reynolds' explanation, no.
Having said that, the lack of "ordinary effort" is self-evident.  At no
point was either player camped under the ball.
The implementation of the Infield Fly Rule was incorrect in this case,
and no amount of rationalization to forestall controversy changes that.
Another thing they did during Reynolds' segment was to freeze the SS
where he was before he pulled away (through the use of technological
magic), and show where he was relative to where the ball landed. The
ball landed just a couple of feet beyond where he had been. It would
have been a routine play, had he stuck with it.
a***@yahoo.com
2012-10-06 19:15:44 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seapig
I don't know if you have access to MLB Network, but Harold Reynolds
gave the best explanation I've seen.  The "call it immediately" part
of the rule doesn't mean call it right off the bat, it means (and
says) call it immediately when it seems apparent that it will be an
Infield Fly.  It's not an Infield Fly (the capitalization comes from
the rule book) unless an infielder can catch it with ordinary effort,
It seems that this can cause some problems. I recall a game in which
the batter hit a little looper toward the short stop. The ump called
"Infield Fly" rather late and the ball hit the ground. The short stop
fielded the ball on the bounce and then threw to second base and the
runner was tagged out trying to get back to second. (Do I assume
correctly that, while a runner can not be forced out on an infield
fly, they can still be tagged out even if they are trying to get back
to the base they came from?)
Seapig
2012-10-06 19:28:07 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by a***@yahoo.com
Post by Seapig
I don't know if you have access to MLB Network, but Harold Reynolds
gave the best explanation I've seen.  The "call it immediately" part
of the rule doesn't mean call it right off the bat, it means (and
says) call it immediately when it seems apparent that it will be an
Infield Fly.  It's not an Infield Fly (the capitalization comes from
the rule book) unless an infielder can catch it with ordinary effort,
It seems that this can cause some problems. I recall a game in which
the batter hit a little looper toward the short stop. The ump called
"Infield Fly" rather late and the ball hit the ground. The short stop
fielded the ball on the bounce and then threw to second base and the
runner was tagged out trying to get back to second. (Do I assume
correctly that, while a runner can not be forced out on an infield
fly, they can still be tagged out even if they are trying to get back
to the base they came from?)
Yes, they can tagged out trying to get back to the base they came
from.

In the situation you describe, it doesn't sound like the problem was
that it was a late call, more that it was either a bad call, or bad
baserunning. If it wasn't a routine play, or if it was a line drive,
it shouldn't have been called an infield fly, early or late. If it
was a routine play, the runner shouldn't have been that far off the
base, regardless of when the infield fly was called.
Tom
2012-10-06 19:32:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seapig
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:47:53 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : > Even if that's true, mentioning it in this context seems like an attempt
: > : > to mitigate the fact that they got hosed in the playoff, which is of
: > : > course utter nonsense. I really wish that people would stop writing
: > : > such stuff about officiating mistakes; it's intellectually dishonest.
: > : It might seem that way if somebody snipped the paragraph where I
: > : talked about the fact that they didn't get hosed. THAT would be
: > : intellectually dishonest. I'm starting to think that there might be
: > : something to all the horrible things people are saying about you.
: >
: > They *did* get hosed in the playoff, though... that's taken as read.
: > The misapplication of the IFR killed a rally late in the game.
: Former MLB umpires and infielders are on my TV saying that the rule
: was properly applied.  That trumps whatever disgruntled Braves fans on
: my computer have to say.
The announcers on the game destroyed the call, as have numerous pundits
since then.  It was incorrect, period, and I haven't seen anyone other
than Joe Torre and others within MLB trying to defend the errant call.
I *have* seen a number of people on television saying since then that
the appeal could not be upheld due to the nature of the error, with the
idea being that it was a judgement call... but that isn't at all the
same thing as saying that the call itself was correct, which it wasn't.
I don't know if you have access to MLB Network, but Harold Reynolds
gave the best explanation I've seen.  The "call it immediately" part
of the rule doesn't mean call it right off the bat, it means (and
says) call it immediately when it seems apparent that it will be an
Infield Fly.  It's not an Infield Fly (the capitalization comes from
the rule book) unless an infielder can catch it with ordinary effort,
so the umpire doesn't call it until it becomes apparent that the
infielder can do so.  That's why the umpire didn't call it until the
SS started settling under the ball (which, as it turned out, was right
before he pulled away from the ball).  That's the way MLB umpires do
it - Reynolds showed a clip of a similar play from the regular season,
and the umpire handled it there the same way he did last night.
+1

Tom
Tom
2012-10-06 18:36:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:20:38 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
: > : should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games
: >
: > Even if that's true, mentioning it in this context seems like an attempt
: > to mitigate the fact that they got hosed in the playoff, which is of
: > course utter nonsense.  I really wish that people would stop writing
: > such stuff about officiating mistakes; it's intellectually dishonest.
: It might seem that way if somebody snipped the paragraph where I
: talked about the fact that they didn't get hosed.  THAT would be
: intellectually dishonest.  I'm starting to think that there might be
: something to all the horrible things people are saying about you.
They *did* get hosed in the playoff, though... that's taken as read.
The misapplication of the IFR killed a rally late in the game.
How did that call, good or bad, kill the rally?

Motte waked the next batter and loaded the bases. The rally was quite
alive.

Tom
Tom
2012-10-06 18:35:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:01:38 -0700 (PDT)]
: And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
: should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games
Even if that's true, mentioning it in this context seems like an attempt
to mitigate the fact that they got hosed in the playoff, which is of
course utter nonsense.  I really wish that people would stop writing
such stuff about officiating mistakes; it's intellectually dishonest.
Why do you think the Braves got hosed?

Worse than committing three errors is the fact they had 21 runners
LOB.

Whose hosed them on that stat?

Tom
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 18:46:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Tom, ***@aol.com]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 11:35:11 -0700 (PDT)]

:
: On Oct 6, 12:09 pm, Antonio Veranos <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > [Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
: > [Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:01:38 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
: > : should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games
: >
: > Even if that's true, mentioning it in this context seems like an attempt
: > to mitigate the fact that they got hosed in the playoff, which is of
: > course utter nonsense.  I really wish that people would stop writing
: > such stuff about officiating mistakes; it's intellectually dishonest.
:
: Why do you think the Braves got hosed?

The misapplication of the IFR doesn't go away based on the fact that the
Braves made mistakes of their own.

: Worse than committing three errors is the fact they had 21 runners
: LOB.
:
: Whose hosed them on that stat?

Irrelevant.
Tom
2012-10-06 19:36:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 11:35:11 -0700 (PDT)]
: > [Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:01:38 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
: > : should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games
: >
: > Even if that's true, mentioning it in this context seems like an attempt
: > to mitigate the fact that they got hosed in the playoff, which is of
: > course utter nonsense.  I really wish that people would stop writing
: > such stuff about officiating mistakes; it's intellectually dishonest.
: Why do you think the Braves got hosed?
The misapplication of the IFR doesn't go away based on the fact that the
Braves made mistakes of their own.
: Worse than committing three errors is the fact they had 21 runners
: LOB.
: Whose hosed them on that stat?
Irrelevant.
No it's not.

Their failure to execute on offense and defense cost them the game.

The IFR call is irrelevant because there's no way to know what the
next batter would have done with the bases loaded and only one out.

Now, I'm through with you.

Tom
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 20:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Tom, ***@aol.com]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 12:36:16 -0700 (PDT)]

: The IFR call is irrelevant because there's no way to know what the
: next batter would have done with the bases loaded and only one out.

It completely changed the game.

Apologists for bad officiating constantly whip out the red herring about
what the screwed team did, as if this some how excuses the officiating.

It doesn't, it never has.
Tom
2012-10-06 21:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 12:36:16 -0700 (PDT)]
: The IFR call is irrelevant because there's no way to know what the
: next batter would have done with the bases loaded and only one out.
It completely changed the game.
How did it completely change the game?

Tom
B.S.S.
2012-10-06 21:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Tom, ***@aol.com]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 14:37:36 -0700 (PDT)]

: > : The IFR call is irrelevant because there's no way to know what the
: > : next batter would have done with the bases loaded and only one out.
: >
: > It completely changed the game.
:
:
: How did it completely change the game?

You write the above and try to act like anyone *else* is trolling?

Good Lord.
Tom
2012-10-07 04:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by B.S.S.
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 14:37:36 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : The IFR call is irrelevant because there's no way to know what the
: > : next batter would have done with the bases loaded and only one out.
: >
: > It completely changed the game.
: How did it completely change the game?
You write the above and try to act like anyone *else* is trolling?
Good Lord.
Um... I'm not trying to act like anything and who said anything about
trolling?

So, I guess it really didn't completely change the game... I see no
explanation of that assertions.

Tom
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-07 04:41:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Tom, ***@aol.com]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 21:37:56 -0700 (PDT)]

: On Oct 6, 4:39 pm, "B.S.S." <***@is.a.scumbag> wrote:
: > [Tom, ***@aol.com]
: > [Sat, 6 Oct 2012 14:37:36 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : > : The IFR call is irrelevant because there's no way to know what the
: > : > : next batter would have done with the bases loaded and only one out.
: > : >
: > : > It completely changed the game.
: > :
: > :
: > : How did it completely change the game?
: >
: > You write the above and try to act like anyone *else* is trolling?
: >
: > Good Lord.
:
: Um... I'm not trying to act like anything and who said anything about
: trolling?

Implied only, based on two responses... could be a mis-read.

: So, I guess it really didn't completely change the game... I see no
: explanation of that assertions.

You might as well ask how a wall across an expressway changes traffic.
Tom
2012-10-07 05:25:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 21:37:56 -0700 (PDT)]
: > [Sat, 6 Oct 2012 14:37:36 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : > : The IFR call is irrelevant because there's no way to know what the
: > : > : next batter would have done with the bases loaded and only one out.
: > : >
: > : > It completely changed the game.
: > : How did it completely change the game?
: >
: > You write the above and try to act like anyone *else* is trolling?
: >
: > Good Lord.
: Um... I'm not trying to act like anything and who said anything about
: trolling?
Implied only, based on two responses... could be a mis-read.
Not implied... inferred by you.
Post by Antonio Veranos
: So, I guess it really didn't completely change the game... I see no
: explanation of that assertions.
You might as well ask how a wall across an expressway changes traffic.
That's not an explanation. I guess one will not be forthcoming.

Tom
Joe Schmoe
2012-10-06 18:32:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seapig
And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games.
They played six games better than St Louis over the course of 162 games.
My complaint is that the new playoff format ignores that and treats
the two teams as equals for a single game, effectively ignoring the
162-game results.
Seapig
2012-10-06 18:45:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by Seapig
And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games.
They played six games better than St Louis over the course of 162 games.
  My complaint is that the new playoff format ignores that and treats
the two teams as equals for a single game, effectively ignoring the
,

The old system treated teams as equals when one of them was better
over 162 games, playing in the same division. Teams in the same
division play more similar schedules so it's a more valid comparison.
Twice the Marlins won the World Series after seasons in which they
were outplayed by the Braves over 162 games, taking advantage of a
system where winning the division gave the Braves no significant
postseason advantage over them. I'm glad that they've fixed that
problem; if it disadvantages a couple of teams that have already shown
us they aren't the best, so be it.
Joe Schmoe
2012-10-06 20:36:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seapig
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by Seapig
And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games.
They played six games better than St Louis over the course of 162 games.
My complaint is that the new playoff format ignores that and treats
the two teams as equals for a single game, effectively ignoring the
,
The old system treated teams as equals when one of them was better
over 162 games, playing in the same division. Teams in the same
division play more similar schedules so it's a more valid comparison.
Twice the Marlins won the World Series after seasons in which they
were outplayed by the Braves over 162 games, taking advantage of a
system where winning the division gave the Braves no significant
postseason advantage over them. I'm glad that they've fixed that
problem; if it disadvantages a couple of teams that have already shown
us they aren't the best, so be it.
The old system did not use a one-game playoff unless the two teams were
tied after 162 games.
Seapig
2012-10-06 21:57:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by Seapig
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by Seapig
And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games.
They played six games better than St Louis over the course of 162 games.
   My complaint is that the new playoff format ignores that and treats
the two teams as equals for a single game, effectively ignoring the
,
The old system treated teams as equals when one of them was better
over 162 games, playing in the same division.  Teams in the same
division play more similar schedules so it's a more valid comparison.
Twice the Marlins won the World Series after seasons in which they
were outplayed by the Braves over 162 games, taking advantage of a
system where winning the division gave the Braves no significant
postseason advantage over them.  I'm glad that they've fixed that
problem; if it disadvantages a couple of teams that have already shown
us they aren't the best, so be it.
The old system did not use a one-game playoff unless the two teams were
tied after 162 games.
The reason they made it one game is part of rewarding the teams that
had the best regular season. If it's best-of-three, then the division
winners are waiting around for close to a week, gathering rust. And,
part of the reward for having the best record in the league is now
getting to play a wild card that likely just used its best pitcher in
the WC game, meaning he'll only be available to start one game in the
division series. If the wild card round is best-of-three, then the
winner will be able to cycle back around to the top of its rotation
for the start of the division series, giving the best team no
advantage there.

Just looking at the wild card game, without the bigger picture, I
don't see a single game being any worse for the "better" team than a
best of five or seven. They get the one game at home, where in a
longer series they have to play half, or as close to half as possible,
of the games on the road. Maybe somebody who's better than me at math
can figure it out, but I'm guessing that the increased randomness of
the single game is more than offset by the more complete home field
advantage.
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 22:01:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 14:57:19 -0700 (PDT)]

: The reason they made it one game is part of rewarding the teams that
: had the best regular season. If it's best-of-three, then the division
: winners are waiting around for close to a week, gathering rust. And,
: part of the reward for having the best record in the league is now
: getting to play a wild card that likely just used its best pitcher in
: the WC game, meaning he'll only be available to start one game in the
: division series. If the wild card round is best-of-three, then the
: winner will be able to cycle back around to the top of its rotation
: for the start of the division series, giving the best team no
: advantage there.

I would like to see them fix it as follows:

Wild Card Round: 1-2 on three consecutive days

Divisional Series: 1-2-2

League Championship: 1-2-2-2

World Series: 1-2-2-2-2
Seapig
2012-10-06 23:41:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 14:57:19 -0700 (PDT)]
: The reason they made it one game is part of rewarding the teams that
: had the best regular season.  If it's best-of-three, then the division
: winners are waiting around for close to a week, gathering rust.  And,
: part of the reward for having the best record in the league is now
: getting to play a wild card that likely just used its best pitcher in
: the WC game, meaning he'll only be available to start one game in the
: division series.  If the wild card round is best-of-three, then the
: winner will be able to cycle back around to the top of its rotation
: for the start of the division series, giving the best team no
: advantage there.
Wild Card Round: 1-2 on three consecutive days
I'm fine with it as is, for the reasons I talked about above. If they
are going to do best-of-three, I agree that doing on consecutive days
would be the way to go.
Post by Antonio Veranos
Divisional Series: 1-2-2
A problem there is the problem a lot of people have with the 2-3
format: the team with the best record could wind up playing only one
postseason game at home. Personally, I like the 2-3 (which they're
returning to on a one-time-only basis this season) because it cuts
down on travel, and I don't see where playing the first two at home
provides any competitive advantage that you don't get from playing any
other two at home.
Post by Antonio Veranos
League Championship: 1-2-2-2
I'm not sure what you gain there, vs. the 2-3-2, other than an extra
plane ride.
Post by Antonio Veranos
World Series: 1-2-2-2-2
I like going to best-of-nine, although it would probably be a tough
sell to the more casual fans who make up most of the World Series
audience. Again, that's a lot of travel, why not go 3-4-2?

Would you cut down on the regular season to make room for the extra
playoff games?
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 23:49:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 16:41:22 -0700 (PDT)]

: Would you cut down on the regular season to make room for the extra
: playoff games?

I'd cut down on the length, but by no means the number of games.

Scheduled doubleheaders return when I'm King of Baseball.
Joe Schmoe
2012-10-07 03:53:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Seapig
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by Seapig
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by Seapig
And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games.
They played six games better than St Louis over the course of 162 games.
My complaint is that the new playoff format ignores that and treats
the two teams as equals for a single game, effectively ignoring the
,
The old system treated teams as equals when one of them was better
over 162 games, playing in the same division. Teams in the same
division play more similar schedules so it's a more valid comparison.
Twice the Marlins won the World Series after seasons in which they
were outplayed by the Braves over 162 games, taking advantage of a
system where winning the division gave the Braves no significant
postseason advantage over them. I'm glad that they've fixed that
problem; if it disadvantages a couple of teams that have already shown
us they aren't the best, so be it.
The old system did not use a one-game playoff unless the two teams were
tied after 162 games.
The reason they made it one game is part of rewarding the teams that
had the best regular season. If it's best-of-three, then the division
winners are waiting around for close to a week, gathering rust. And,
part of the reward for having the best record in the league is now
getting to play a wild card that likely just used its best pitcher in
the WC game, meaning he'll only be available to start one game in the
division series. If the wild card round is best-of-three, then the
winner will be able to cycle back around to the top of its rotation
for the start of the division series, giving the best team no
advantage there.
Just looking at the wild card game, without the bigger picture, I
don't see a single game being any worse for the "better" team than a
best of five or seven. They get the one game at home, where in a
longer series they have to play half, or as close to half as possible,
of the games on the road. Maybe somebody who's better than me at math
can figure it out, but I'm guessing that the increased randomness of
the single game is more than offset by the more complete home field
advantage.
The reason they play so many games in the regular season is because
that's how many it takes to determine the superior teams. Baseball is
about the long haul. A one game playoff series is ridiculous, period,
as should be obvious by now.
Seapig
2012-10-07 11:47:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by Seapig
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by Seapig
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by Seapig
And, if the Braves didn't want to be part of a one-game playoff, they
should have played better than Washington over the course of 162 games.
They played six games better than St Louis over the course of 162 games.
    My complaint is that the new playoff format ignores that and treats
the two teams as equals for a single game, effectively ignoring the
,
The old system treated teams as equals when one of them was better
over 162 games, playing in the same division.  Teams in the same
division play more similar schedules so it's a more valid comparison.
Twice the Marlins won the World Series after seasons in which they
were outplayed by the Braves over 162 games, taking advantage of a
system where winning the division gave the Braves no significant
postseason advantage over them.  I'm glad that they've fixed that
problem; if it disadvantages a couple of teams that have already shown
us they aren't the best, so be it.
The old system did not use a one-game playoff unless the two teams were
tied after 162 games.
The reason they made it one game is part of rewarding the teams that
had the best regular season.  If it's best-of-three, then the division
winners are waiting around for close to a week, gathering rust.  And,
part of the reward for having the best record in the league is now
getting to play a wild card that likely just used its best pitcher in
the WC game, meaning he'll only be available to start one game in the
division series.  If the wild card round is best-of-three, then the
winner will be able to cycle back around to the top of its rotation
for the start of the division series, giving the best team no
advantage there.
Just looking at the wild card game, without the bigger picture, I
don't see a single game being any worse for the "better" team than a
best of five or seven.  They get the one game at home, where in a
longer series they have to play half, or as close to half as possible,
of the games on the road.  Maybe somebody who's better than me at math
can figure it out, but I'm guessing that the increased randomness of
the single game is more than offset by the more complete home field
advantage.
The reason they play so many games in the regular season is because
that's how many it takes to determine the superior teams.  Baseball is
about the long haul.  A one game playoff series is ridiculous, period,
as should be obvious by now.
Sure, but as long as they're limited to teams that proved themselves
not to be superior over the long haul, I'm not going to lose any sleep
over it.
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-07 11:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
[Sun, 7 Oct 2012 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT)]

: > The reason they play so many games in the regular season is because
: > that's how many it takes to determine the superior teams.  Baseball is
: > about the long haul.  A one game playoff series is ridiculous, period,
: > as should be obvious by now.
:
: Sure, but as long as they're limited to teams that proved themselves
: not to be superior over the long haul, I'm not going to lose any sleep
: over it.

The thing is, though, they're not. Both the Orioles and the Rangers, to
use two examples, had superior records to the Detroit Tigers this year.

I'm not too worried about it, given the unbalanced scheduling, though.
If we ever had pseudobalanced scheduling (true balancing isn't possible,
of course), then I would just as soon we have no divisions and send the
top X teams to the playoffs.

I still think that the WC round should be best of 3, though.
Seapig
2012-10-07 12:15:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sun, 7 Oct 2012 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT)]
: > The reason they play so many games in the regular season is because
: > that's how many it takes to determine the superior teams.  Baseball is
: > about the long haul.  A one game playoff series is ridiculous, period,
: > as should be obvious by now.
: Sure, but as long as they're limited to teams that proved themselves
: not to be superior over the long haul, I'm not going to lose any sleep
: over it.
The thing is, though, they're not.  Both the Orioles and the Rangers, to
use two examples, had superior records to the Detroit Tigers this year.
But they were inferior to the Yankees and A's. If you're not the best
team in your division, you don't have much of a claim to being the
best team in the world. The Tigers probably don't deserve to go in to
the postseason on equal footing with the A's, but I'm not arguing that
the new setup is perfect, just that it's an improvement over what we
had before.
Post by Antonio Veranos
I'm not too worried about it, given the unbalanced scheduling, though.
If we ever had pseudobalanced scheduling (true balancing isn't possible,
of course), then I would just as soon we have no divisions and send the
top X teams to the playoffs.
I still think that the WC round should be best of 3, though.
If all we cared about was crowning the best team as champion, the way
to go would be to have just one league with no divisions, play a
balanced schedule, and crown the top team as champion, with no
playoffs - like a European soccer league. But we also care about
entertainment value, so we have divisions - which give us more races,
more games between rivals, and an October full of playoff baseball.
It also gives us mediocre teams sneaking into the postseason, and
occasionally winning the whole thing. I think the tradeoff is worth
it.

What I like about the new format is that it increases both sides of
the equation - more entertainment, and a greater likelihood that the
best team will win the whole thing. Most changes increase one at the
expense of the other.
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-07 12:31:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
[Sun, 7 Oct 2012 05:15:08 -0700 (PDT)]

: On Oct 7, 4:53 am, Antonio Veranos <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > [Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
: > [Sun, 7 Oct 2012 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : > The reason they play so many games in the regular season is because
: > : > that's how many it takes to determine the superior teams.  Baseball is
: > : > about the long haul.  A one game playoff series is ridiculous, period,
: > : > as should be obvious by now.
: > :
: > : Sure, but as long as they're limited to teams that proved themselves
: > : not to be superior over the long haul, I'm not going to lose any sleep
: > : over it.
: >
: > The thing is, though, they're not.  Both the Orioles and the Rangers, to
: > use two examples, had superior records to the Detroit Tigers this year.
:
: But they were inferior to the Yankees and A's. If you're not the best
: team in your division, you don't have much of a claim to being the
: best team in the world.

What does being the best team in the world have to do with it? For one
thing, by that logic, no one but the team with the best record should be
able to avoid a one-game playoff. For another thing, the post-season
will determine the winner of the tournament, not who was the best team
in the world. That's all they've ever determined; the best team doesn't
always win, and there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

: The Tigers probably don't deserve to go in to
: the postseason on equal footing with the A's, but I'm not arguing that
: the new setup is perfect, just that it's an improvement over what we
: had before.

Agreed.

: > I'm not too worried about it, given the unbalanced scheduling, though.
: > If we ever had pseudobalanced scheduling (true balancing isn't possible,
: > of course), then I would just as soon we have no divisions and send the
: > top X teams to the playoffs.
: >
: > I still think that the WC round should be best of 3, though.
:
: If all we cared about was crowning the best team as champion, the way
: to go would be to have just one league with no divisions, play a
: balanced schedule, and crown the top team as champion, with no
: playoffs - like a European soccer league. But we also care about
: entertainment value, so we have divisions - which give us more races,
: more games between rivals, and an October full of playoff baseball.
: It also gives us mediocre teams sneaking into the postseason, and
: occasionally winning the whole thing. I think the tradeoff is worth
: it.
:
: What I like about the new format is that it increases both sides of
: the equation - more entertainment, and a greater likelihood that the
: best team will win the whole thing. Most changes increase one at the
: expense of the other.

Agreed, though I think that the 1-game playoff is likely to go away, as
it should, to the point that every post-season team gets a home game.
Seapig
2012-10-07 13:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sun, 7 Oct 2012 05:15:08 -0700 (PDT)]
: > [Sun, 7 Oct 2012 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : > The reason they play so many games in the regular season is because
: > : > that's how many it takes to determine the superior teams. Baseball is
: > : > about the long haul. A one game playoff series is ridiculous, period,
: > : > as should be obvious by now.
: > : Sure, but as long as they're limited to teams that proved themselves
: > : not to be superior over the long haul, I'm not going to lose any sleep
: > : over it.
: >
: > The thing is, though, they're not. Both the Orioles and the Rangers, to
: > use two examples, had superior records to the Detroit Tigers this year.
: But they were inferior to the Yankees and A's.  If you're not the best
: team in your division, you don't have much of a claim to being the
: best team in the world.
What does being the best team in the world have to do with it?  For one
thing, by that logic, no one but the team with the best record should be
able to avoid a one-game playoff.  For another thing, the post-season
will determine the winner of the tournament, not who was the best team
in the world.  That's all they've ever determined; the best team doesn't
always win, and there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
If you want to replace "best team" with "champion" that might make
what I'm trying to say clearer. I agree that it's OK for somebody
other than the best team to win, it keeps things interesting and at
least creates the illusion of competitive balance. But there should
be some correlation between being the champion and being the best, for
the championship to mean something more than just winning a postseason
tournament. I find it a bit odd when a team is flying a World
Champions banner, when there was another team that won ten more games
than them in the same division.

I don't think that no one but the best team should be able to avoid a
one-game playoff, because you're then comparing teams playing very
different schedules (of course, since the advent of interleague play,
even teams in the same division have been playing different schedules,
but they're at least partially fixing that problem next year). Plus,
getting back to the entertainment factor, division races are a lot
more fun when they mean something, and getting to avoid the play-in
game is something.
Post by Antonio Veranos
: The Tigers probably don't deserve to go in to
: the postseason on equal footing with the A's, but I'm not arguing that
: the new setup is perfect, just that it's an improvement over what we
: had before.
Agreed.
: > I'm not too worried about it, given the unbalanced scheduling, though.
: > If we ever had pseudobalanced scheduling (true balancing isn't possible,
: > of course), then I would just as soon we have no divisions and send the
: > top X teams to the playoffs.
: >
: > I still think that the WC round should be best of 3, though.
: If all we cared about was crowning the best team as champion, the way
: to go would be to have just one league with no divisions, play a
: balanced schedule, and crown the top team as champion, with no
: playoffs - like a European soccer league.  But we also care about
: entertainment value, so we have divisions - which give us more races,
: more games between rivals, and an October full of playoff baseball.
: It also gives us mediocre teams sneaking into the postseason, and
: occasionally winning the whole thing.  I think the tradeoff is worth
: it.
: What I like about the new format is that it increases both sides of
: the equation - more entertainment, and a greater likelihood that the
: best team will win the whole thing.  Most changes increase one at the
: expense of  the other.
Agreed, though I think that the 1-game playoff is likely to go away, as
it should, to the point that every post-season team gets a home game.
It should take a few years for the second wild card to feel entitled
to a home game, when, up until now, they wouldn't have gotten any
game. I prefer it at one game, because I think that increases the
advantage the top seed has over the wild card in the following round.
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-07 14:03:24 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
[Sun, 7 Oct 2012 06:39:35 -0700 (PDT)]

:
: On Oct 7, 5:31 am, Antonio Veranos <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > [Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
: > [Sun, 7 Oct 2012 05:15:08 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : On Oct 7, 4:53 am, Antonio Veranos <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
: > : > [Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
: > : > [Sun, 7 Oct 2012 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : >
: > : > : > The reason they play so many games in the regular season is because
: > : > : > that's how many it takes to determine the superior teams. Baseball is
: > : > : > about the long haul. A one game playoff series is ridiculous, period,
: > : > : > as should be obvious by now.
: > : > :
: > : > : Sure, but as long as they're limited to teams that proved themselves
: > : > : not to be superior over the long haul, I'm not going to lose any sleep
: > : > : over it.
: > : >
: > : > The thing is, though, they're not. Both the Orioles and the Rangers, to
: > : > use two examples, had superior records to the Detroit Tigers this year.
: > :
: > : But they were inferior to the Yankees and A's.  If you're not the best
: > : team in your division, you don't have much of a claim to being the
: > : best team in the world.
: >
: > What does being the best team in the world have to do with it?  For one
: > thing, by that logic, no one but the team with the best record should be
: > able to avoid a one-game playoff.  For another thing, the post-season
: > will determine the winner of the tournament, not who was the best team
: > in the world.  That's all they've ever determined; the best team doesn't
: > always win, and there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
:
: If you want to replace "best team" with "champion" that might make
: what I'm trying to say clearer. I agree that it's OK for somebody
: other than the best team to win, it keeps things interesting and at
: least creates the illusion of competitive balance. But there should
: be some correlation between being the champion and being the best, for
: the championship to mean something more than just winning a postseason
: tournament. I find it a bit odd when a team is flying a World
: Champions banner, when there was another team that won ten more games
: than them in the same division.

I disagree, and think that there's a logical disconnect between "World
Champion" and "best team", as long as the Champion is determined by a
knockout tournament. For example, were the New York Giants the best
team in the National Football League last year? No, not by a long, long
way... but they got hot at the right time and won the tournament. Being
among the best gets you into the tournament, but after that it's a lot
about how things go in individual instances which have many more factors
determining their outcome than who is "best" (or "better").

: I don't think that no one but the best team should be able to avoid a
: one-game playoff, because you're then comparing teams playing very
: different schedules (of course, since the advent of interleague play,
: even teams in the same division have been playing different schedules,
: but they're at least partially fixing that problem next year). Plus,
: getting back to the entertainment factor, division races are a lot
: more fun when they mean something, and getting to avoid the play-in
: game is something.

I agree with regard to the divisional races, I just think that a one-
game playoff is too short. I think it will change very soon.

: > : The Tigers probably don't deserve to go in to
: > : the postseason on equal footing with the A's, but I'm not arguing that
: > : the new setup is perfect, just that it's an improvement over what we
: > : had before.
: >
: > Agreed.
: >
: > : > I'm not too worried about it, given the unbalanced scheduling, though.
: > : > If we ever had pseudobalanced scheduling (true balancing isn't possible,
: > : > of course), then I would just as soon we have no divisions and send the
: > : > top X teams to the playoffs.
: > : >
: > : > I still think that the WC round should be best of 3, though.
: > :
: > : If all we cared about was crowning the best team as champion, the way
: > : to go would be to have just one league with no divisions, play a
: > : balanced schedule, and crown the top team as champion, with no
: > : playoffs - like a European soccer league.  But we also care about
: > : entertainment value, so we have divisions - which give us more races,
: > : more games between rivals, and an October full of playoff baseball.
: > : It also gives us mediocre teams sneaking into the postseason, and
: > : occasionally winning the whole thing.  I think the tradeoff is worth
: > : it.
: > :
: > : What I like about the new format is that it increases both sides of
: > : the equation - more entertainment, and a greater likelihood that the
: > : best team will win the whole thing.  Most changes increase one at the
: > : expense of  the other.
: >
: > Agreed, though I think that the 1-game playoff is likely to go away, as
: > it should, to the point that every post-season team gets a home game.
:
: It should take a few years for the second wild card to feel entitled
: to a home game, when, up until now, they wouldn't have gotten any
: game. I prefer it at one game, because I think that increases the
: advantage the top seed has over the wild card in the following round.

I've already seen plenty of pundits talking about how the one-game
format is too short, unfair, etc. I really think it'll go quickly.
Seapig
2012-10-07 15:47:53 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
[Sun, 7 Oct 2012 06:39:35 -0700 (PDT)]
: > [Sun, 7 Oct 2012 05:15:08 -0700 (PDT)]
: >
: > : > [Sun, 7 Oct 2012 04:47:43 -0700 (PDT)]
: > : >
: > : > : > The reason they play so many games in the regular season is because
: > : > : > that's how many it takes to determine the superior teams. Baseball is
: > : > : > about the long haul. A one game playoff series is ridiculous, period,
: > : > : > as should be obvious by now.
: > : > : Sure, but as long as they're limited to teams that proved themselves
: > : > : not to be superior over the long haul, I'm not going to lose any sleep
: > : > : over it.
: > : >
: > : > The thing is, though, they're not. Both the Orioles and the Rangers, to
: > : > use two examples, had superior records to the Detroit Tigers this year.
: > : But they were inferior to the Yankees and A's. If you're not the best
: > : team in your division, you don't have much of a claim to being the
: > : best team in the world.
: >
: > What does being the best team in the world have to do with it? For one
: > thing, by that logic, no one but the team with the best record should be
: > able to avoid a one-game playoff. For another thing, the post-season
: > will determine the winner of the tournament, not who was the best team
: > in the world. That's all they've ever determined; the best team doesn't
: > always win, and there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion.
: If you want to replace "best team" with "champion" that might make
: what I'm trying to say clearer.  I agree that it's OK for somebody
: other than the best team to win, it keeps things interesting and at
: least creates the illusion of competitive balance.  But there should
: be some correlation between being the champion and being the best, for
: the championship to mean something more than just winning a postseason
: tournament.  I find it a bit odd when a team is flying a World
: Champions banner, when there was another team that won ten more games
: than them in the same division.
I disagree, and think that there's a logical disconnect between "World
Champion" and "best team", as long as the Champion is determined by a
knockout tournament.  For example, were the New York Giants the best
team in the National Football League last year?  No, not by a long, long
way... but they got hot at the right time and won the tournament.  Being
among the best gets you into the tournament, but after that it's a lot
about how things go in individual instances which have many more factors
determining their outcome than who is "best" (or "better").
That's a relatively recent phenomenom in baseball. For most of
baseball history, somebody who wanted to equate "champion" with "best
team" could do so without any real evidence to the contrary, because
the league champions were decided via the "European soccer" method I
talked about earlier, and the World Series, while a small sample size,
was the only glimpse we got of the relative strength of the league
champions, in the absence of interleague play during the regular
season. Out of respect to the World Series' legacy, I'd like to see a
postseason system that rewards regular season excellence.

This isn't really a black and white issue, it's just what my gut tells
me vs. what your gut tells you. My gut tells me that recent World
Series winners have been a bit more random than I would like. But, I
should be careful what I wish for; I really don't want to see the
Yankees run off a string of five in a row or something.
Post by Antonio Veranos
: I don't think that no one but the best team should be able to avoid a
: one-game playoff, because you're then comparing teams playing very
: different schedules (of course, since the advent of interleague play,
: even teams in the same division have been playing different schedules,
: but they're at least partially fixing that problem next year).  Plus,
: getting back to the entertainment factor, division races are a lot
: more fun when they mean something, and getting to avoid the play-in
: game is something.
I agree with regard to the divisional races, I just think that a one-
game playoff is too short.  I think it will change very soon.
Too short for what?

It wouldn't kill me to see it go to three games, but my fear is that
Selig would see all those playoff teams sitting around waiting their
turn and think "let's give them something to do." Next thing, we've
got three more wild cards in each league, and we're looking at the
fall version of the NBA playoffs (and, worse still, the summer version
of the NBA regular season).
Post by Antonio Veranos
: > : The Tigers probably don't deserve to go in to
: > : the postseason on equal footing with the A's, but I'm not arguing that
: > : the new setup is perfect, just that it's an improvement over what we
: > : had before.
: >
: > Agreed.
: >
: > : > I'm not too worried about it, given the unbalanced scheduling, though.
: > : > If we ever had pseudobalanced scheduling (true balancing isn't possible,
: > : > of course), then I would just as soon we have no divisions and send the
: > : > top X teams to the playoffs.
: > : >
: > : > I still think that the WC round should be best of 3, though.
: > : If all we cared about was crowning the best team as champion, the way
: > : to go would be to have just one league with no divisions, play a
: > : balanced schedule, and crown the top team as champion, with no
: > : playoffs - like a European soccer league. But we also care about
: > : entertainment value, so we have divisions - which give us more races,
: > : more games between rivals, and an October full of playoff baseball.
: > : It also gives us mediocre teams sneaking into the postseason, and
: > : occasionally winning the whole thing. I think the tradeoff is worth
: > : it.
: > : What I like about the new format is that it increases both sides of
: > : the equation - more entertainment, and a greater likelihood that the
: > : best team will win the whole thing. Most changes increase one at the
: > : expense of the other.
: >
: > Agreed, though I think that the 1-game playoff is likely to go away, as
: > it should, to the point that every post-season team gets a home game.
: It should take a few years for the second wild card to feel entitled
: to a home game, when, up until now, they wouldn't have gotten any
: game.  I prefer it at one game, because I think that increases the
: advantage the top seed has over the wild card in the following round.
I've already seen plenty of pundits talking about how the one-game
format is too short, unfair, etc.  I really think it'll go quickly.
Those are probably the same pundits who have spent the better part of
a decade complaining about the All Star Game determining home field
advantage in the World Series, and that hasn't gone anywhere.
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-07 16:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[Seapig, ***@altavista.com]
[Sun, 7 Oct 2012 08:47:53 -0700 (PDT)]

: > I've already seen plenty of pundits talking about how the one-game
: > format is too short, unfair, etc.  I really think it'll go quickly.
:
: Those are probably the same pundits who have spent the better part of
: a decade complaining about the All Star Game determining home field
: advantage in the World Series, and that hasn't gone anywhere.

It hasn't, but it should.
J. Hugh Sullivan
2012-10-06 17:30:25 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 02:37:23 +0100, Antonio Veranos
Post by Antonio Veranos
...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.
How was it misapplied?
Hugh
It was misapplied because the rule says the infield fly rule is "for the
benefit of the runners." The umpire made the call a second before the
ball hit the ground in a situation when none of the runners was in
jeopardy of being doubled up. Bad call, but not nearly as bad a the
concept of a one-game playoff series.
The rule is for the benefit of the runners to prevent a double play. I
saw that happen before the rule was made. I may have dropped a popup
myself but can't recall.

The call must be made immnediately. If, as you say it was not, the
appeal should win.

Hugh
B.S.S.
2012-10-06 17:34:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[J. Hugh Sullivan, ***@bellsouth.net]
[Sat, 06 Oct 2012 17:30:25 GMT]

: The call must be made immnediately. If, as you say it was not, the
: appeal should win.

If we define the flight of the ball thusly...

Point 1: bat makes contact with the ball
Point 2: ball at apex of arc
Point 3: ball strikes the ground

...the call for the IFR was made at Point 2.75.
xyzzy
2012-10-06 17:35:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 02:37:23 +0100, Antonio Veranos
Post by Antonio Veranos
...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.
How was it misapplied?
Hugh
It was misapplied because the rule says the infield fly rule is "for the
benefit of the runners."  The umpire made the call a second before the
ball hit the ground in a situation when none of the runners was in
jeopardy of being doubled up.  Bad call, but not nearly as bad a the
concept of a one-game playoff series.
The rule is for the benefit of the runners to prevent a double play. I
saw that happen before the rule was made.
Umm, how old are you, anyway?

That rule was instituted in 1895.
Antonio Veranos
2012-10-06 17:37:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
[xyzzy, ***@gmail.com]
[Sat, 6 Oct 2012 10:35:16 -0700 (PDT)]

: > The rule is for the benefit of the runners to prevent a double play. I
: > saw that happen before the rule was made.
:
: Umm, how old are you, anyway?
:
: That rule was instituted in 1895.

Holy crap...
J. Hugh Sullivan
2012-10-06 19:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by xyzzy
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 02:37:23 +0100, Antonio Veranos
Post by Antonio Veranos
...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.
How was it misapplied?
Hugh
It was misapplied because the rule says the infield fly rule is "for the
benefit of the runners." =A0The umpire made the call a second before the
ball hit the ground in a situation when none of the runners was in
jeopardy of being doubled up. =A0Bad call, but not nearly as bad a the
concept of a one-game playoff series.
The rule is for the benefit of the runners to prevent a double play. I
saw that happen before the rule was made.
Umm, how old are you, anyway?
That rule was instituted in 1895.
Interesting. I played from about 1935 until about 1987. Of course the
later years were industrial softball. The last baseball was about
1951.

I have seen a double play on TV as a result of a dropped infield fly -
probably mid-50s.

Hugh
Tom
2012-10-06 18:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe Schmoe
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 02:37:23 +0100, Antonio Veranos
Post by Antonio Veranos
...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.
How was it misapplied?
Hugh
It was misapplied because the rule says the infield fly rule is "for the
benefit of the runners."  The umpire made the call a second before the
ball hit the ground in a situation when none of the runners was in
jeopardy of being doubled up.  Bad call, but not nearly as bad a the
concept of a one-game playoff series.
MLB Network's Harold Reynolds did an excellent breakdown and
explanation of the IFR and last night's game. He was thorough and took
his time discussing the nuances of the rule. He also showed clips of
plays that were nearly identical to last night's play. After watching
his segment last night and again this morning, I agree with
Reynolds... the umps got it right. I'm trying to find a clip on the
MLB Network web site, but they don't have a search option. If I find a
clip, I'll post it here.

Tom
Jeanne Douglas
2012-10-06 22:14:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 02:37:23 +0100, Antonio Veranos
Post by Antonio Veranos
...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.
How was it misapplied?
A fly to halfway into the outfield cannot be an infield fly.
--
JD

"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Tom
2012-10-07 04:40:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 02:37:23 +0100, Antonio Veranos
Post by Antonio Veranos
...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.
How was it misapplied?
A fly to halfway into the outfield cannot be an infield fly.
--
JD
"Osama Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive."--VP Joseph Biden
Jeanne,

Harold explains it all...

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=25339817

Tom
News
2012-10-08 12:03:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
x-no-archive: yes
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by J. Hugh Sullivan
On Sat, 6 Oct 2012 02:37:23 +0100, Antonio Veranos
Post by Antonio Veranos
...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.
How was it misapplied?
A fly to halfway into the outfield cannot be an infield fly.
Look at the rule, Jeanne. It doesn't say anywhere in it that the ball
itself has to be in the infield when it lands.
The INFIELDER called for the catch, and it doesn't make a bit of
difference where he was on the diamond.

Joe Schmoe
2012-10-06 16:00:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Antonio Veranos
...by referring to a misapplication of the Infield Fly Rule as a
judgement call, when it wasn't any such thing at all, period.
Braves' protest denied in record time, and Selig bunkers down, hoping
that this all gets swept under the rug very quickly. Pathetic.
http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=321005115
Everyone already knew that a one-game playoff is completely
inappropriate for baseball. What a farce.
Loading...