9/16 vs Angels

[Dojji]

Finally got a chance to see that Fuentes pitch. It was close, But it was low. The very most you can say about it is that it might have been a strike with some umpires. That one had consistently called that pitch a ball all night.

[Dojji]

All wussies by Yaz's standards. He'd be ashamed to show his face around Fenway if he missed as many games in 3 seasons as each of these guys missed this season.

 

Youks has averaged 145 games played a year over the last three and a big part of the reason it hasn't been more has been a combination of HBP's and the corner infield crunch.

 

Yastrzemski played his way into injuries, he was on the field so much. He would have been a better player if he'd taken breaks more regularly to keep his health up. Sometimes it's about more than a momentary machismo.

[Cocos Disciples]

This Yaz guy sounds like kind of a dick. He keeps calling JD Drew a pussy.

[a700hitter]

Youks has averaged 145 games played a year over the last three and a big part of the reason it hasn't been more has been a combination of HBP's and the corner infield crunch.

 

Yastrzemski played his way into injuries, he was on the field so much. He would have been a better player if he'd taken breaks more regularly to keep his health up. Sometimes it's about more than a momentary machismo.

IMO players then felt more of an obligation to play back then. It had nothing to do with machismo. It's the thing that I admire most about Derek Jeter. He goes out there every day whether he's banged up or not. He doesn't act macho about it. He has a strong sense of obligation to the team. He knows that a Yankee team with a banged up Jeter is better than a Yankee team without Jeter. I am sorry, but I think guys that sit because they have nagging injuries are selfish. Yeah maybe their numbers look better at the end of the year, but their teams would be better off if they played through the injuries, because benches are so thin today that a healthy backup performs well below the level of a dinged up star. What I like about Jeter is that if a Yankee fan pays $50 or $100 for a ticket, he knows that he is going to see Jeter. He doesn't take off day games after night games or sit down against tough pitchers. If you are a Yankee fan and you go to the game, you see Jeter. I don't know how much the fans motivate Jeter to play every day, but that is an old school mentality. When Yaz played, the was no MLB network, MLBTV, or Directv Extra Innings package. Less than half the games were televised. If you were a Sox fan as a kid, Yaz was your hero. If you went to the game and he didn't play, you were very disappointed, because you didn't get 24/7 coverage of your team back then. It had nothing to do with machismo. There was no such thing as a Dirt Dog. No one talked about grit. They didn't walk around puffing out there chests. They went out every day for their team mates and for the fans who paid to see them. Stars also stayed in the lineups when they were hurt or playing below par, because an injured Yaz, Mays, Mantle etc. was a threat in the lineup. They would get pitched around on days when they were hurt and the other guys got good pitches to hit. Them being in the lineup made the other guys better. It wasn't about grit. It was about helping your team win. When they were hurt, they slumped so their numbers suffered. That didn't make them less valuable to the team than if they sat out and rested. A hurt Yaz was better than a healthy Joe LaHoud any day of the week. To denigrate those guys by mockingly using the term "grit" etc. is a disservice to them. IMO, those guys were more team oriented than today's players, who are more about their #'s. It has nothing to do with grit, machismo etc. Mantle would cry when he went 0-5 and the team lost. How macho was that?

[Dipre]

IMO players then felt more of an obligation to play back then. It had nothing to do with machismo. It's the thing that I admire most about Derek Jeter. He goes out there every day whether he's banged up or not. He doesn't act macho about it. He has a strong sense of obligation to the team. He knows that a Yankee team with a banged up Jeter is better than a Yankee team without Jeter. I am sorry' date=' but I think guys that sit because they have nagging injuries are selfish. Yeah maybe their numbers look better at the end of the year, but their teams would be better off if they played through the injuries, because benches are so thin today that a healthy backup performs well below the level of a dinged up star. What I like about Jeter is that if a Yankee fan pays $50 or $100 for a ticket, he knows that he is going to see Jeter. He doesn't take off day games after night games or sit down against tough pitchers. If you are a Yankee fan and you go to the game, you see Jeter. I don't know how much the fans motivate Jeter to play every day, but that is an old school mentality. When Yaz played, the was no MLB network, MLBTV, or Directv Extra Innings package. Less than half the games were televised. If you were a Sox fan as a kid, Yaz was your hero. If you went to the game and he didn't play, you were very disappointed, because you didn't get 24/7 coverage of your team back then. It had nothing to do with machismo. There was no such thing as a Dirt Dog. No one talked about grit. They didn't walk around puffing out there chests. They went out every day for their team mates and for the fans who paid to see them. Stars also stayed in the lineups when they were hurt or playing below par, because an injured Yaz, Mays, Mantle etc. was a threat in the lineup. They would get pitched around on days when they were hurt and the other guys got good pitches to hit. Them being in the lineup made the other guys better. It wasn't about grit. It was about helping your team win. When they were hurt, they slumped so their numbers suffered. That didn't make them less valuable to the team than if they sat out and rested. A hurt Yaz was better than a healthy Joe LaHoud any day of the week. To denigrate those guys by mockingly using the term "grit" etc. is a disservice to them. IMO, those guys were more team oriented than today's players, who are more about their #'s. It has nothing to do with grit, machismo etc. Mantle would cry when he went 0-5 and the team lost. How macho was that?[/quote']

 

You seriously need to stop it.

 

Your argument holds 0 water.

[a700hitter]

You seriously need to stop it.

 

Your argument holds 0 water.

You are to young to have lived through it, but that was the thinking of the day. I didn't make it up. You know the game also didn't have 1 inning closers then either. It's hard to believe, but things change, and there are pluses and minuses to every change. Not everyone buys into the 1 inning closer concept, but it is the convention of the times.

[Dojji]

And apparently Green's hurting.

 

I was basically fighting for my life. It's hard to explain," said Green. "Look at the replay. Look at all the swings. I couldn't really swing. Physically, I was not healthy. I don't know what it is."

 

Green's just glad he could avoid some ultimate blooper reels after drawing the clutch walk.

 

"I almost collapsed every single swing and almost collapsed walking down to first and almost collapsed when I was leading off [first]," said Green. "I don't know what's wrong with it. I didn't even take a secondary lead."

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20090917&content_id=7013458&vkey=news_bos&fext=.jsp&c_id=bos

[Dipre]

You are to young to have lived through it' date=' but[b'] that was the thinking of the day. [/b] I didn't make it up. You know the game also didn't have 1 inning closers then either. It's hard to believe, but things change, and there are pluses and minuses to every change. Not everyone buys into the 1 inning closer concept, but it is the convention of the times.

 

Case in point.

 

Times change.

 

Walter Johnsonn would cry at 5-man rotations and innings limits.

[a700hitter]

Case in point.

 

Times change.

 

Walter Johnsonn would cry at 5-man rotations and innings limits.

Right, and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. It gives the younger members of the forum some historical perspective about how the game has changed. You need to know how the game has changed if you are going to fairly compare players from different eras.

[Dipre]

Right' date=' and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. It gives the younger members of the forum some historical perspective about how the game has changed. You need to know how the game has changed if you are going to fairly compare players from different eras.[/quote']

 

The problem is, there's no fair way to compare players from different eras.

[The_Destroyah]

Right' date=' and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out. It gives the younger members of the forum some historical perspective about how the game has changed. You need to know how the game has changed if you are going to fairly compare players from different eras.[/quote']

 

me and my father have often discussed/debated the pros and cons of where baseball is today with coddling its players, he usually manages to mention how he saw Ripken tie Lou Gherig's record, and how if he could come out there everyday then why couldn't these other players who coddle their injuries, but he also has no problems with players taking days off for family emergencies, they happen and family should always come first.

[Dipre]

me and my father have often discussed/debated the pros and cons of where baseball is today with coddling its players' date=' he usually manages to mention how he saw Ripken tie Lou Gherig's record, and how if he could come out there everyday then why couldn't these other players who coddle their injuries, but he also has no problems with players taking days off for family emergencies, they happen and family should always come first.[/quote']

 

Cal Ripken JR hurt his career and his team pursuing that record.

[a700hitter]

Cal Ripken JR hurt his career and his team pursuing that record.

Was his back up better than a tired Ripken? I don't think so. Hurt his career? He won an MVP and a World Championship and he's in the Hall of Fame. What more do you want?

[yankees228]

Finally got a chance to see that Fuentes pitch. It was close' date=' But it was low. The very most you can say about it is that it might have been a strike with some umpires. That one had consistently called that pitch a ball all night.[/quote']

 

Look, you have to call a spade a spade. It was definitely a strike. This is not a question. Ball calls happen, and this was a tough one to take (for someone rooting for the other team), but unfortunately it happens. However, to say that pitch was low is just false. Almost every single umpire, if not every umpire, is going to consistently call that a strike.

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfx/numlocation.php?xml=http://gd2.mlb.com/components/game/mlb/year_2009/month_09/day_16/gid_2009_09_16_anamlb_bosmlb_1//pbp/pitchers/150118.xml&batterX=090916_231149&innings=yyyyyyyyy&s_type=3&sp_type=1&h_size=700&v_size=500

[yankees228]

wow the red sox only have one more series vs. teams with winning records. the one left with the LAA and the NYY series.

 

the Yankees have four teams with .500 and better. TB, SEA, LAA and BOS. The Red Sox are looking really good. before tonight the red sox starters over the past 6 games had an era of 0.48

 

While Seattle may be above .500, they are not a very good team. As a matter of fact, if I could choose teams to play in the AL they would be a top of the list. Their lineup is awful. They only have two productive hitters.

 

Most telling is their PYTH of 67-79.

[yankees228]

Was his back up better than a tired Ripken? I don't think so. Hurt his career? He won an MVP and a World Championship and he's in the Hall of Fame. What more do you want?

 

In 1991 he was spectacular. Definitely deserving of the MVP award. His slash line that year was .323/.374/.566. He went out the next year, in the same amount of games, and produced a slash line of .251/.323/.366. His slugging percentage dropped by 200 points. That is an incredible decline from one year to the next and is extremely hard to explain.

 

I think it's very possible that he played hurt at times and his statistics really suffered.

[The_Destroyah]

Cal Ripken JR hurt his career and his team pursuing that record.

 

Oh I agree, I was just mentioning the conversation between me and my pops.

[Dojji]

Look, you have to call a spade a spade. It was definitely a strike. This is not a question. Ball calls happen, and this was a tough one to take (for someone rooting for the other team), but unfortunately it happens. However, to say that pitch was low is just false. Almost every single umpire, if not every umpire, is going to consistently call that a strike.

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfx/numlocation.php?xml=http://gd2.mlb.com/components/game/mlb/year_2009/month_09/day_16/gid_2009_09_16_anamlb_bosmlb_1//pbp/pitchers/150118.xml&batterX=090916_231149&innings=yyyyyyyyy&s_type=3&sp_type=1&h_size=700&v_size=500

 

Napoli had to go down and get it. He probably hurt his pitcher on the call. It was at best borderline and I've probably seen that same pitch get called a ball a hundred times.

 

If the pitch was too close to take, it was also too close to throw with your team up 1 run, full count and the bases jacked. And Green NOTICEABLY struggling during the at bat. Fuentes needed to challenge Green there, not go corner seeking.

[yankees228]

Napoli had to go down and get it. He probably hurt his pitcher on the call. It was at best borderline and I've probably seen that same pitch get called a ball a hundred times.

 

If the pitch was too close to take, it was also too close to throw with your team up 1 run, full count and the bases jacked. And Green NOTICEABLY struggling during the at bat. Fuentes needed to challenge Green there, not go corner seeking.

 

All I'm contending is that your statement that it was low is false. Pitch FX proves that, and it also proves that it really wasn't borderline.

[a700hitter]

In 1991 he was spectacular. Definitely deserving of the MVP award. His slash line that year was .323/.374/.566. He went out the next year, in the same amount of games, and produced a slash line of .251/.323/.366. His slugging percentage dropped by 200 points. That is an incredible decline from one year to the next and is extremely hard to explain.

 

I think it's very possible that he played hurt at times and his statistics really suffered.

Was his team better off with him in the lineup, or the backup utility infielder?

[a700hitter]

Oh I agree' date=' I was just mentioning the conversation between me and my pops.[/quote']Drop the pops stuff, because if you said that to my face I'd slap you until you were spinning.

[yankees228]

Was his team better off with him in the lineup' date=' or the backup utility infielder?[/quote']

 

You could make the case that he hurt his team by not doing all he could to perform up to his full capabilities. If it meant sitting out a couple weeks to return to form, Ripken wasn't going to do that. They could live with another SS in there for a short period of time if it meant getting Ripken back to full strength.

[The_Destroyah]

Drop the pops stuff' date=' because if you said that to my face I'd slap you until you were spinning.[/quote']

 

lol I call my dad pops all the time...and I seriously doubting that he would feel any need to slap me lol

[Dojji]

All I'm contending is that your statement that it was low is false. Pitch FX proves that' date=' and it also proves that it really wasn't borderline.[/quote']

 

Pitch f/x is good, but not perfect.

 

Visually, looking at the at bat, the pitch was low to my eyes. I've seen worse pitches called balls, but again -- no place to put Green, you need to challenge him and trust your defenders, and above all, not nibble even a little bit. Fuentes nibbled.

[a700hitter]

lol I call my dad pops all the time...and I seriously doubting that he would feel any need to slap me lol

People who are not your Dad might find that reference offensive. If you start calling 50 year old men "pops" to their faces, you might not like the reaction that it elicits.

[Beaneater]

Look, you have to call a spade a spade. It was definitely a strike. This is not a question. Ball calls happen, and this was a tough one to take (for someone rooting for the other team), but unfortunately it happens. However, to say that pitch was low is just false. Almost every single umpire, if not every umpire, is going to consistently call that a strike.

http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfx/numlocation.php?xml=http://gd2.mlb.com/components/game/mlb/year_2009/month_09/day_16/gid_2009_09_16_anamlb_bosmlb_1//pbp/pitchers/150118.xml&batterX=090916_231149&innings=yyyyyyyyy&s_type=3&sp_type=1&h_size=700&v_size=500

 

Alright, I looked at some data, probably the same graph you're linking here. The pitch was in the strike zone. Not by much, but I won't argue the point.

 

However...

 

* That pitch was not consistently called a strike last night by that umpire. Boston pitchers threw three pitches higher than that one that were called balls.

 

* In fact, to put it bluntly, the ump was terribly inconsistent at the bottom edge of the strike zone. Looking at his calls for the whole game, it looked like he just flipped a coin when the ball was at/below the knees. "Tails? Then that one's a STEEEEEE-RIKE!"

 

* The ump did job the Angels in general. The Sox got way more pitches outside the zone called strikes than the Angels did. I'd count them, but I'm too lazy.

 

All in all, looking the data, that call was not an aberration. Bad call? Maybe. Another reason why I'd like to see pitch-calling become 100% automated. Of course, there's no way a sport as blessed with tradition as baseball will entirely dispose of the ump's pitch-calling duties. But they could just put two little LEDs inside his face mask. Red light goes on, he calls a strike. Green light goes on, he calls a ball. He still gets to do his little crowd-pleasing fist-pumping-and-yelling schtick for strikes in big situations.

 

I'm only about 25% kidding.

 

Really my last thought: whatever happened during Greenie's AB last night is totally irrelevant in the bog scheme of things. The Angels will still win the AL West. The Red Sox will still win the WC. And we'll still hose them in the ALDS .

 

EDIT: It's irrelevant not just in the bog scheme of things, but also in the big scheme of things.

[The_Destroyah]

People who are not your Dad might find that reference offensive. If you start calling 50 year old men "pops" to their faces' date=' you might not like the reaction that it elicits.[/quote']

 

I wasnt referring to you as pops I was referring to a conversation I had with my father, sorry if there was a misunderstanding there.

[Beaneater]

If the pitch was too close to take' date=' it was also too close to throw with your team up 1 run, full count and the bases jacked. And Green NOTICEABLY struggling during the at bat. Fuentes needed to challenge Green there, not go corner seeking.[/quote']

 

This too.

[a700hitter]

I wasnt referring to you as pops I was referring to a conversation I had with my father' date=' sorry if there was a misunderstanding there.[/quote']My bad. I just slapped myself.

[The_Destroyah]

My bad. I just slapped myself.

 

its all good friend