random off-topic thread

[Newman]

Barroid is 10 home runs away from Hank.

Q: Should Bud Selig be there when he breaks the record? Henry, who is 72, won't be there.

A: No. Bud shouldn't go. The Commish wasn't there (was that Bowie Kuhn?) for Aaron back in the day, when he connected off Al Downing. Why should Bud be there for this tainted record? Should be interesting to watch.

Beer in the clubhouse. Since Josh Hancock's death, drunk driving, there's been a move in baseball to remove alcohol from the clubhouse. The Yanks have followed the A's who had already done this. The Rox are mulling this over. (Would save them money; so I think it's a no brainer).

Big overreaction I think. Having a few beers after the game, talking about what went right and what went wrong is an American tradition. If you make the millionaire ball players drive across the street to buy beer you will lose the comraderie, the fans will annoy the players, they will have to spend their own hard earned money, and so forth. All bad.

LaRussa should have recognized Hancock's problem and gotten him into a rehab program. People that can't handle their beer should not punish the rest of us who can. Hancock was well known in the clubhouse as a big partier.

[Newman]

Why not? They have it in every other major sport, even hockey.

Don't we want to get the call right?

A home run should be THAT and not a double.

I say either install instant replay or ban Bob Davidson from umpiring. He was a lousy talk radio host and is a lousy ump, IMHO.

[TheIncredibleRox]

I have an old Tim McCarver book... I remember one passage that said something to the effect of "computers could concievably replace umpires. The technology is available that every pitch, every call at first base, every fair or foul ball, could be judged practically without error. It would also destroy the very soul of the game."

Save this, 'cuz I may never say it again.... I agree with Tim McCarver.

The facts are:

A- Umpires do an incredible job.
B- When they don't, it stirs the emotions and reminds us why we care. Anyone wanna see Earl Weaver or Sweet Lou yell at a computer?
C- Over the long haul, it balances out. Just because we had a crappy series in May doesn't mean the whole system should be thrown out.

[Newman]

1. Some umpires do an incredible job. Bob Davidson is a hack.

2. Every other sport has joined the 21st Century. Why not baseball? Look, we have steroids just like football. Imagine the excitement when manager for life Clint Hurdle throws out the red bean bag, challenging the home run call that Davidson missed. He only gets to use one bean bag per game. Should he use it now or wait til Davidson blows another call in the 9th? Don't we all love strategy decisions?

3. The idea is to get the calls right. If the puck is in the net it should count. If the ball is over the fence it should count.

[Dante Bichette]

I agree that Bob Davidson is a bad umpire. There is a reason why he was sitting at home for a long time after the strike while other umpires were brought back.

As for replay, I will take it for home run calls only. These calls are too important to miss. Leave the balls and strikes and tag and force calls to the umps, who usually get it right.

[Roxpert]

IF there is replay brought into the game, I would only allow it for "game-changing plays", i.e. plays where the umpire's call either subtracted or added runs(s) to the scoreboard. I would allow only one call to be contested per manager per game. Otherwise, it slows things down too much.

So this means I would allow contested calls on the following plays:

1. Homeruns
2. Plays at the plate
3. Other plays where runs are taken off, or added to the board, such as hitters trying to stretch a single to a double withe two outs and being thrown out while a runner crosses the plate, and the run is waived off or allowed. Another example would be tag-up plays on sac flies. Manager could contest whether the runner left too soon or not, even if the appeal play doesn't work.

As in the NFL, there would have to be irrefutable video evidence in order for the umpire to change the call.

[hiaspire]

Too many modern-day fans believe the game is already too slow without adding not-so-instant replay to things, but the goal should still be to get the calls right when they matter most. It is a little unrealistic to believe umpires can make some of these close calls that are so far away from their vantage point, and increasingly technology makes those guys look bad because video does get a better look at it.

Can't we implement something that minimizes interuption? I'm not sure why replay has to take as long as it does in all sports. In football there is a whole ceremony almost full of pomp and circumstance, with challenge flags being thrown, on-field discussions about the issue involved, crowd announcements, and the zebras trotting off to the sidelines to poke their head under the monitor for a long look before eventually announcing the results of the investigation.

To me, most people in the audience watching it on TV know what really happened on the field long before any decisions are made. In big games, they run online polls where fans vote for the correct call by the thousands before anything is announced. Then you spend several minutes waiting to see if they saw the same thing on the field monitor and can get things going again.

I don't know why you don't just have a supervisory official attending all the games whose job it is to evaluate the on-field umpires and provide whatever support is needed (communicating to league office, checking weather reports, watching for possible calls that should be reversed based upon video evidence, logging issues for evaluation purposes, etc.).

The head man on the field can have a communication devise in his pocket to speak with the boss upstairs when a questionable call happens. Just like they stand around and discuss the issue amongst themselves when those questionable calls happen, but now they can have communication to the outside world in a trusted league official who has more information to share with them and can tell them exactly what it looked like on video for them to also consider as they discuss things on the field.

Then you wouldn't need an umpire going off to some station to view the video and slowing things down as fans boo. By the time they decided that they need some help, the supervisor upstairs has probably already seen the replay several times and can tell them exactly what the call should be, and they can get on with the game without replay having a NOTICABLE impact.

That minimizes the presence in the game to the traditionalist fans, keeps things moving along, and gives the umps more relevant information to make sure they get things right more often in such situations.

[indianadrew]

i think that sensors of some sort could be used. the HR that atkins was robbed of in cincinnati would have been a homerun if there had been a sensor there. i am against the whole idea of them for baseball. bad calls are part of the game. just say no to instant replay in baseball.

[BigRapidsJackass]

I see no reason not to have a look at the tape for these "did it hit off the side or top of the wall" and "did it stay on the fair side of the foulpole" HR questions. The umps on the field simply can't have a good view regardless of how good they are. Just because you use it for that doesn't mean you have to use it for anything else. I don't think anyone wants plays at the plate reviewed NFL-style.

On another topic here: I don't get banning beer in the clubhouse in Coors Frickin' Field of all things. As I always say, it's not the drinkin'; it's the drivin' -- if baseball wants to avoid Josh Hancock issues, make sure players don't jump in the car after downing a 6 pack. Hancock had a .15 BAC. I just pulled out my handy chart. For a 200 lb man, you'd have to down 6 beers within an hour to get to that level.

I hate to trash a dead guy, but the fact is this: Hancock is dead because he was an out of control idiot.

EDIT: I was looking at the female chart. A 200 lb male would need to down 8 or 9 beers within an hour to hit the level Hancock was at. If a guy is getting that trashed in the clubhouse, I doubt he'd have a job for long -- after all, the Cards had a game the next day, and I don't see Tony LaRussa as a guy who'd tolerate that crap. So Hancock no doubt got wasted somewhere else, after leaving the locker room and before driving home. Ban idiots, don't ban alcohol.

[indianadrew]

hey jackass

it kinda makes me wonder, in todays litigation happy society, if the cardinals are going to be sued?

i agree with your statement "Hancock is dead because he was an out of control idiot". that is why i hardly ever drink, but when i do it is at home.

[RMF]

Wasn't Tony found drunk and asleep in a running SUV at a stop light? I don't understand why baseball clubs would ban alcohol from MLB club houses. I mean if you don't allow alcohol to be consumed after the games by players but you're selling it at your concessions for $ 7.50 what are you really saying? Are you saying you don't want alcohold consumed on your property? It's not like MLB players are pounding a 12 pack in the locker room.

If you're banning alcohol as a PR move that seems like a pretty hollow PR move. The Rockies have huge early bird specials for drinking before the games start.

Being drunk, and using a cellphone and speeding on the highway is pretty stupid. Especially for a ballplayer. Could the guy not afford a cab? Some people are just prone to reckless behavior. Risky behavior is the number one killer of young people. Its just sad.

[Newman]

Jackass, as usual you are spot on. Hancock didn't drink in the clubhouse. He got drunk at some bar. I heard that on the radio so I know it's true.

Coors Field. No beer? Gutless. It's all about litigation. Fear of the lawsuit. The Milwaukee BREWERS had the balls not to ban beer from the clubhouse.

LaRussa was asleep at the wheel, RMF. Yep. So what authority would he have in counseling other grown adults on drinking in moderation?

Paris Hilton is going to jail for 45 days for drunk driving. It's not a matter of money. She obviously can afford a chauffeur. And Josh Hancock could afford a taxi.

People who have addiction problems, like Josh Hancock did, aren't they aware of it? Have they no friends because they're so obnoxious when drunk? Will Paris Hilton be a repeat offender or will this jail sentence scare her straight?

You can't force someone to get help. Maybe LaRussa could have given Josh an ultimatum: either clean up your act or go down to AAA or get traded. it's not like Hancock was a star, like Fuentes or Roger Clemens. You would think you could force a middling player to get therapy, counseling, or would the UNION step in and cry foul?

[indianadrew]

did anybody else see the SI article on the pitcher for creighton that throws both hander? i read that there are 3 of them in the NCAA this year. does MLB have any rules regarding a switch-pitcher?

[BigRapidsJackass]

The NY Times did an article on him too. His name is Pat Venditte.

Throwing Batters Curves Before Throwing a Pitch - New York Times

He's apparently no novelty act -- he has some real talent. If I remember correctly he's kind of a 90 mph college power pitcher right handed and a kind of crafty sidearmer with the left hand.

I think you can pitch with both hands in MLB, you just have to choose an arm and stick with it for each batter.

I'd pay to see that!

[indianadrew]

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

Throwing Batters Curves Before Throwing a Pitch - New York Times



I think you can pitch with both hands in MLB, you just have to choose an arm and stick with it for each batter.

I'd pay to see that!

what is the rule on switch hitters? do they have to hit the whole AB from the same side? i would imagine the rule would be the same. i am just amazed that there is a pitcher like that on the college level, much less division 1. i can honestly say that i have never heard of anyone doing that

could you imagine what clint hurdle wold do with him? imagine the posibilities