2014 MLB Regular Season & Post Season too! (1 Viewer)

[Aaron Silverman]

Crawdaddy, I never thought of that but it makes perfect sense!

Thanks for straightening me out.

 

[Ockeghem]

Wow, Pineda has been ejected for the pine tar. I didn't see that coming. I was looking around for George Brett to storm the field, but he was nowhere to be found.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pine_Tar_Incident

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Dale & Holley just played the Sterling/ Waldman reaction to Pineda getting tossed. "I think the Red Sox may have started something that they don't want to start." -- Suzyn. Priceless!

 

[Robert Crawford]

It's all Arod's fault!

 

[Josh Steinberg]

Was just catching up on this thread, and some of the comments on replay.

I really like the idea of replay, but I've been baffled by how poorly it's been executed. It almost feels like the people who have designed the current rules and system want it to suck so that they can say, "See, it slows the whole damn game down and was a bad idea!" All of these rules about who can challenge what and when and under what circumstances and number of challenges and all of that stuff.

I guess defining what could be a reviewable call can fall under that old line about defining pornography - "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" - and that's kind of how I feel. Here's my criteria for what a reviewable play should be: if the majority of people watching in the stadium, and the overwhelming majority of people watching on TV at home, can see that the call is wrong, then you have to fix it. I don't care if it's something major or something minor, when it's obvious to everyone except the four umpires, fix it.

I also think this business of having to have the umpires radio to a central booth in NY, and all of that delay, to be ridiculous. I don't see why umpires need to march off the field to review a call in a video booth (as they formerly did with home run calls) or why they need to have one central facility. Put an extra guy up in the broadcast booth who can see the field from the angle the broadcasts get, and who can see all of the camera angles right there. Have one person sitting up there, and when they get something wrong, just radio down to the umpires on the field and tell them. When you watch a game at home on TV, and a call gets blown, the announcers and editors usually have those replays up onscreen within seconds, and in less than a minute, the home audience can usually tell if it was a good or bad call. I don't see why they need to make it any more complicated than that.

I love the idea of getting the call right. I think there are ways to do that that are far more efficient than what they're currently doing and that can be far less disruptive to the flow of the game.

 

[Ockeghem]

Pineda has been suspended for ten games, which I suppose equates to about two starts.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/10833864/michael-pineda-new-york-yankees-banned-10-games-mlb

 

[Aaron Silverman]

Usually the reason why a call is not reviewable (in any sport) is due to the level of judgement call involved. (Which is not to say that I always agree, or that they never change.)

I'm OK with the central office, as long as they run it efficiently. It works OK in the NHL.

 

[Mike Frezon]

And just another example that MLB is running around like a chicken with its head cut off.

The powers-that-be have decided to enact a mid-season rules change on the issue of when is a caught ball an out when the ball is dropped on the transfer.

I have seen a number of plays this April in which caught fly balls have NOT been ruled outs as the outfielder later dropped the ball when trying to throw back in to the infield and, for example, there was a play in last night's Yankees/Red Sox game in which Pedroia (the Sox 2nd baseman) clearly had control of the ball on 2nd base to record the force out but then lost control of the ball as he tried to complete the double play. Both runners were ruled to be safe.

While I'm glad to see the rule "fixed," it never should have been "broken" in the first place.

 

[Ockeghem]

Mike,The MLB Network just had a piece on the tweaking of the transfer issue you cited above. This is a change for the better. They're also talking about tweaking the replay rules somewhat, but they didn't elaborate.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10839416/mlb-clarifies-transfer-rule-saying-infielders-complete-control-ball-double-play-forceouts

 

[Mike Frezon]

Mike,The MLB Network just had a piece on the tweaking of the transfer issue you cited above. This is a change for the better. They're also talking about tweaking the replay rules somewhat, but they didn't elaborate.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10839416/mlb-clarifies-transfer-rule-saying-infielders-complete-control-ball-double-play-forceouts

It IS definitely a change for the better, Scott. Although making a change mid-season is something I never remember MLB doing before.

The outcomes of games in April 2014 have been affected by that rule. To change a rule mid-stream might require an asterisk or something.

The issue is simply bad management. They rushed into this rule change as part of the implementation of replay. And they rushed replay onto the field, too. To change rules that have been in effect for a hundred-plus years without reasoned thinking and experimentation isn't going to work--as has been shown with the transfer rule.

I hope they don't plan on "tweaking" the replay rules mid-season, too.

 

[Ockeghem]

Mike,Commentators during one of the games I was watching last night mentioned that such-and-such had been going on for one hundred years without any problem, so why change it now? I feel as though we're going to be in for some more replay (and rules changes) surprises as the season moves along. Complaints are coming in now with regard to how long the process (reviewing a play) takes. It will be interesting to see where this goes.

 

[Mike Frezon]

Making rules changes on the fly is something that's done during wiffleball games in your best friend's back yard.

Do you suppose each major league team had played the same number of games under the recently-demised transfer rule? What if a team lost a game based on that rule and at the season misses a playoff spot by one game?

Going into tonight's schedule (when the rule was changed-back), Boston had played 23 games, Detroit 19. That's four more games in which the Sox played under the "bad" transfer rule than did the Tigers.

I'll be mighty surprised (and further disappointed) if MLB continues to make rules changes during the midst of a regular season.

 

[Ockeghem]

Welcome to Red Sox Nation, A. J. Pierzynski!

-- Aaron Silverman (tm)

 

[Kevin Hewell]

I don't usually like talking about my team until June but the Braves are playing some great ball. I do wish they would play small ball a little more but the results, so far, are pretty impressive.

 

[Mike Frezon]

A catch is a catch is a catch.

Baseball Commissioner Bud Selig called the interpretation ‘‘a good solution.
‘‘And since it’s still April, I think we acted quickly,’’ he said.

 

[Aaron Silverman]

The issue is simply bad management. They rushed into this rule change as part of the implementation of replay. And they rushed replay onto the field, too. To change rules that have been in effect for a hundred-plus years without reasoned thinking and experimentation isn't going to work--as has been shown with the transfer rule.

Well, I suppose this qualifies as "experimentation." As for reasoned thinking. . .

 

[Ron1973]

Pineda has been suspended for ten games, which I suppose equates to about two starts.

http://espn.go.com/new-york/mlb/story/_/id/10833864/michael-pineda-new-york-yankees-banned-10-games-mlb

From my understanding it's nothing new for pitchers to be using pine tar or other substances to get a grip on the ball, especially in cold weather. Being a huge Cardinal fan and watching the games religiously, I can't help but notice the huge stain on the bill of Lance Lynn's cap and how he goes to that stain quite often! If a batter can use a substance to grip the bat better it seems almost a double standard to not allow the pitcher to do the same.

I've never understood the point in giving a pitcher a certain amount of days. If a position player is given a 5 day suspension, he's out all 5 days. If a starting pitcher is suspended for 5 days, he's maybe missing one start! I think that needs to be addressed, too.

 

[Ockeghem]

Welcome to Red Sox Nation, Jonny Gomes!

-- Aaron Silverman ™

 

[Ron1973]

The Cardinals better pick up the pace and quick!

 

[Ockeghem]

It's been about five years since the Red Sox have taken a season series from the pesky Rangers, which they did today. And it was great seeing them finally take a series in Texas, too. Lackey has been pitching really well thus far. I hope the 'cowboy' can keep it up.

http://scores.espn.go.com/mlb/recap?gameId=340511113&teams=boston-red-sox-vs-texas-rangers