Maxbialystock

1. It wasn't right down the middle, it was low in the zone. 2. Pedroia did get a fastball, 93 mph, in the geometric center of the strike zone and missed it completely. Despite Wright's heroics, which have been considerable, our guys have been outplayed, including two errors, and I think at least one PB, which let in Chicago's first run. It always amazes me when fans want to blame the manager when the players are stinking it up. Our first five hitters were hitless tonight. Pedroia struck out with the bases loaded when the pitcher lacked control and would have walked him. Vazquez did the same thing--turned a walk into an out. Either player walking would have won the game. And that's the manager's fault? Are the players never at fault?

Against a lefty pitcher, Shaw is sure out. Plus Vazquez has been hitting lately, including 2 hits in this game of our four total. What you don't know about this team would fill a book.

Pedroia struck himself out when the pitcher lacked control and would have walked him except Pedroia insisted on swinging at almost every pitch. Vazquez the same thing except he hit a grounder on a pitch that was so far outside he had to reach to hit it. Either player walking would have won the game.

I'm not sure I meant to say we like imperfections, rather we tolerate them because we like umpires making the calls. which has been the case for over 150 years. We like the human element of umpires because sports and athletics are very human endeavors. If your "credibility gap" is so real, why isn't there a visible movement to change how balls and strikes are called? Where is the public outcry? Why isn't the Commissioner of MLB on the spot to "fix the umpire problem?" I personally don't think umpires are all that flawed, and I have seen lots of players challenge calls that were in fact correct.

Are you saying you don't care about the balls and strikes? That bad calls don't bother you a lot? That they haven't driven you to argue that umpires should not call them? I agree "obsess" is a strong word, but mvp78 has in fact said he has stopped watching games when he thinks the ball and strike calls are particularly bad. I call that obsessive.

Good point. But umpires also have the benefit of technology, I'm sure, by getting regular reports on their performance, especially behind the plate. My guess is that replays of their calls are a frequent thing after spring training games and a regular thing during the regular season. You think human umpires are obsolete, but I don't. And, by the way, Lou Boudreau, manager of the Cleveland Guardians, was the one who first used a big shift--against Ted Williams back in the 1950's. Computers have refined our ability to analyze hitting patterns, but the basic idea is 60 or more years old. And let's not forget that bold shifts incur risks. One is that a bunt to the other side is almost a sure hit if executed properly. Another, as Bogaerts demonstrated, is that the shift makes it a whole lot easier for a man on first to avoid an out at second and to get to 3B. As for looking at an IPAD, that's not much different from good scouting reports which go way, way back.

Love the young guys, especially Bogaerts, but gotta go with Big Papi, who leads the team in rbi's and in key rbi's as well. mvp78 makes a good point about Wright--only pitches every 5th day. However, as Kimmi would say, I can't disagree with anyone picking Wright.

Fans have been coming to MLB games in droves--or didn't you read that Forbes article (which you never responded to)? MLB attendance dwarfs all other major professional sports. That's with 4 umpires, all actively engaged in making calls. Turn the game over to robots, and there's a good chance that attendance will go down. You guys are obsessed with a pure strike zone for one reason only: you see the pure strike zone on your TV screen and believe it is reality. I watch almost all my games on TV or on my laptop or ipad, and I recognize that they are a secondary experience and not the same as the game that is played on the field with the umpires in charge, the fans cheering or booing and being silent, the vendors selling all kinds of stuff, the managers and coaches trying to help shape the game at the margins, and the players dealing with all the background while trying to make the right pitch or get a hit or make a play or run the bases. All those things are done by people with their fair share of human foibles. That's the great game of baseball and not what some of us obsess over on the TV screen. Your obsession with perfecting the calls of balls and strikes misses the point of what a sport is supposed to be--a human endeavor.

Fans have been coming to MLB games in droves--or didn't you read that Forbes article (which you never responded to)? MLB attendance dwarfs all other major professional sports. That's with 4 umpires, all actively engaged in making calls. Turn the game over to robots, and there's a good chance that attendance will go down. You guys are obsessed with a pure strike zone for one reason only: you see the pure strike zone on your TV screen and believe it is reality. I watch almost all my games on TV or on my laptop or ipad, and I recognize that they are a secondary experience and not the same as the game that is played on the field with the umpires in charge, the fans cheering or booing and being silent, the vendors selling all kinds of stuff, the managers and coaches trying to help shape the game at the margins, and the players dealing with all the background while trying to make the right pitch or get a hit or make a play or run the bases. All those things are done by people with their fair share of human foibles. That's the great game of baseball and not what some of us obsess over on the TV screen.

Porcello and especially Price looking very good against a good-thing Mariners team that was and might still be 2d in the AL in runs scored behind us. If this continues and Wright stays reasonably close to where he is, that's three solid starters. ERod has the potential to be a decent 4th and Buchholz a 5th. That's probably wishful thinking, but we are also learning the hitting can't always bail the pitching out. We need the pitching, especially against good teams like Baltimore, Seattle, Texas, et al.

That is a great semi-quote and entirely believable. Maybe the best description I've yet read of MLB starters.

That is a good point. I don't like umpires who seem to have a god complex, and that call is a good example. But I would offer two comments. The first is that that bad call was/is memorable. Infuriating, but memorable therefore to me an integral part of the experience of watching that game. Ortiz got screwed, ump was wrong, all part of the game. The second is that MLB does in fact critique and grade umpires using technology, so these days the umpire god complexes are fewer than they once were.

My thought is that this series, while still very early in the season, has some resemblance to something definitive. The Orioles this year do have an offense, especially all those dingers. But, unlike the Sox, they also have pitching. The Orioles starter last night, despite his 4+ ERA, shut down what has been the best lineup in MLB--in Fenway--and he seemed to do it with a 89-90 mph fastball and a nice curve/slider and pretty good control, which is what Sox starters mostly. Good pitching, sadly, usually trumps good hitting. In game 1 Tuesday the Sox lost despite Price having a pretty good start. So the Sox lost the series because of basically silent bats in 2 of the 3 games. Orioles pitching isn't just better than ours. This time, anyway, it was better than our lineup. I thought Buchholz looked sharp--good fast ball, but also good changeup and good curve and pretty good command of all three.

Could not agree more. Umpires make mistakes which should never be tolerated, so get rid of them. The more we dehumanize baseball the more perfect it will become. What we see on the boob tube, especially the endless replays, is way more important than what is happening on the field of play.

Certainly. Missed calls have been part of the game for over, what, a 150 years. I like human beings making the calls because I consider the umpires to be part of the experience of watching a game. Indeed, I like the old-fashioned idea that the umpire is there to rule and rule quickly on everything and that what he says is it. I tolerate the challenges--and I also don't have much choice--because overall they shorten the game by preventing repeated charges onto the diamond by irate managers. Let's not forget that this current furor over missed calls is entirely the result of not just television, but replays--with or without challenges--upon replays upon replays, all of which condition us to believe that all calls must be exactly right. I accept errors by players, to say nothing of lousy pitching, because that's the nature of the game. I also accept missed calls for the same reason. I love watching games on TV because I have no alternative as a Sox fan, but I do not mislead myself that what I see on TV, especially those endless replays, are part of the game because they are not. The games consists of the players, the umpires, the coaches, and the managers.

To heck with the ump. I'd like a set of those VR glasses. Actually, on the museum project I'm working on, we are looking at getting some.

A good win, but one that bugs me. We had them 6-0 and they came back. I would have vastly preferred that the Sox score the final 4 runs of the game. Tazawa was way too hittable, which I think happens when his forkball isn't working.

I feel the same way, and I have been to Camden Yards, an excellent ballpark, several times.

What an idiot. I just saw Shaw make a great grab diving for a hard hit ball, bounce to his feet, and throw the batter out by a mile.

I don't like the interruptions. Let's not forget that maybe half of those calls were correct in the first place so those interruptions were a complete waste of time. Plus some of them are very, very close, so close that I would not object to a wrong call. Tonight for example, the Sox got the call on that attempted steal because Bogaerts actually made the tag barely before the Orioles runner's foot hit the bag. I would have been just fine with no challenge and that guy on 2B.

That great play by Pedroia reminds me that one advantage of being a short infielder is that you are quicker getting back up on your feet. Sometimes when Shaw dives for a ball, he needs to call time out to be allowed to regain his footing. Otherwise, his best move is not to throw to first.

Actually, I don't like the interruptions, but tolerate them because overall they save time by preventing managers from going ape at every call they don't like. Now they only get mad on balls and strikes, which is good for them because sometimes you just have to vent. Also, the umpires make all the calls in the field, and managers only get so many challenges, especially if they challenge and the call is upheld. The pure strike zone advocates don't want umpires calling balls and strikes, period. They want a robot or a computer hooked to a camera or whatever.

That Orioles pitcher sort of reminds me of Beckett in 2006, his first year in Boston, when his ERA was 5.00 and he loved his fastball, but not as much as opposing hitters did. Boy is it great to see those bats, especially HanRam's, come alive against the Orioles, whom I dislike even more than the Yankees.

So, if attendance is so great in the 21st century and every game has not one but four umpires in uniform, including one guy behind the plate only getting 87% of the balls and strikes right, it looks to me like the dumbest thing MLB could do is send the robots out. But maybe not. Maybe MLB fans, the ones who go to games, are just stupid and need to be force fed those robots, computers, cameras, whatever. But instead of robots, let's call them clowns so we can all shout with glee, "bring on the clowns."

Down since when? Last year was the 7th highest total attendance in the history of MLB according to a Forbes article that also says that, given every team has 81 home games (vs., what, 8 home games in the NFL), given that going to ball games of any kind is more and more expensive, and given that the overall team average is around 30,000 per game, MLB attendance is very impressive. MLB is, simply stated, flourishing. I don't know where you get your number from, but that ain't right. I'll go with Forbes, thank you. Oh, the six seasons that had better attendance than last year were, wait for it: 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2012, 2013. Looks like MLB is the sport of choice in the 21st century attendance wise. Last year the average team attendance for the season was 2.459M, which dwarfs the attendance of any NFL, NHL, NBA, or soccer team in the world.