Maxbialystock

Don't like hockey that much, but have to say listening to a baseball game can be great fun. It's how I got hooked on the Sox--summers of 1953 and especially 1954 I listened to Curt Gowdy call the games.

Allow me to restate why I still believe umps should call balls and strikes. Just two reasons. First, over the long haul missed calls balance out and do not prevent good hitters from getting hits nor good pitchers from getting guys out--nor, for that matter, good teams from winning their fair share of games. Second, calling balls and strikes is uniquely--among all sports--at the heart of baseball, a quintessentially human endeavor. To take umpires away from calling balls and strikes is, quite simply, to marginalize them tantamount to emasculating them. They are part of the very fabric of baseball even though, as mvp78 points out, no one goes to a game to root for his favorite ump. My gripe, I should add, is that all this is caused by television, and, to me, baseball is easily the best sport to watch in person. Unfortunately, I overwhelmingly have to watch games on the boob tube. Strangely enough, I like the strike zone superimposed on the screen so I can see where each pitch went. But I am fine, for the most part, with whatever the umpire calls because I think it's essential that that activity be a human endeavor. Indeed, sometimes it is is part of the drama of baseball. Last night Tazawa walked the first batter on 5 pitches only because the umpire missed two strikes that were well inside the strike zone. Trumbo should have never been up to bat with two and and two out, but instead he got that big dinger. I was furious. But to me that's part of the experience of watching baseball, and it did not make me want a computer calling balls and strikes. I like umpires engaged, not standing around waiting for a computer to tell them what's going on.

They do indeed charge out onto the field to protect players, but these days it's to confront home plate umps on calls on balls and strikes. Rare is the player or manager these days who goes ape over a call on the bases or in the field. They are all conditioned to await their own team's prognosis on whether that presumed bad call is challengeable.

FWIW, I was getting ready to post something here last night after that 3 run dinger Tazawa gave up to Trumbo in I think the 7th inning last night. We had gone ahead 5-4 with a great rally and dinger by Ortiz, but Baltimore had tied it. Ross came out and walked the first guy of 5 pitches, but two of those balls were well within the strike zone and should have been called. If they had been, Trumbo would not have come to bat for the 3 run dinger. As it turns out, however, the bullpen was more than willing to give up another 4 runs. So I'm sticking to my two basic points. 1. Ball and strike calls by human umpires even out over the long haul and do not prevent good pitchers from getting hitters out nor good hitters from getting hits. 2. Having balls and strikes called by cameras/computers would definitely "purify" the strike zone, but would change the nature of the game, I think for the worse because balls and strikes are central and taking umpires out of the equation marginalizes them and makes cameras and computers central to what is a quintessentially human endeavor. I am not anti-technology and rely on my iphone, ipad, laptop, and a plethora of other gizmos in my home, car, etc. When I watch a game, I even prefer to see that strike zone framework on the screen. But I want the umpire to make the call there and on the basepaths and in the infield and outfield. They are part of the game, indeed part of every competitive team sport I can think of.

So let me ask you and the other advocates for a pure strike zone. If one were rigorously enforced--probably by technology--would you be in favor of it if it meant the Sox would lose more games than they would under the current system? I ask because I have the sneaking suspicion that everyone advocating better ball/strike calls wants that because they believe it will help the Red Sox pitching.

While I agree the rotation ain't so hot, I think Wright, Price, and Rodriguez are pretty decent. And the bullpen is better than it has been recently.

Tazawa threw the right pitch, another forkball, but left it way up in the zone. Let's not forget that the first batter should have been out if the ump had not called balls on two pitches comfortably inside the strike zone. Machaco should not have come to bat.

All good reasons.

After last night, I'm a little less confident in Swihart in LF. He's not good at setting himself to throw after catching a fly ball.

I'm wondering why Vazquez seemed to say nothing about those ball/strike calls against the first batter.

I'm getting the Orioles feed and they made no comment on the ball/strike calls for the first batter against Ross. They also normally do not show the frame of the strike zone. But I was also checking my ipad mlb.com app which does show the framework.

Ross was screwed on that first batter. Terrible calls by the ump.

Pitchers are dumb not to pitch Shaw on the outer part of the plate where he definitely looks uncomfortable swinging.

HanRam got caught stealing, but was an incredibly accurate throw.

Porcello threw 2 straight semi-fast balls (88 mph) to a guy with 16 dingers already and one was right in the middle of the zone.

JBay always has the nitty-gritty. My mlb.com app says tonight's lineup is Betts, Pedroia, Bogaerts, Ortiz,Ramirez, Shaw, Swihart, Young, and Vazquez. Once again six righty bats against a righty starter. I live about an hour away from Camden Yards, but can't stand the rush hour traffic for a mid-week night game, to say nothing of getting back at midnight or so.

I vastly prefer college basketball for reasons you state. I too hate too many flags in the NFL but tolerate them. What I can't stand is the ridiculous number of timeouts. I like to channel surf and am pretty sure that at least half the time when I go to an NFL game they are in a commercial. I honestly don't think today's umpires are prone to make the games about themselves--mostly because of the replays, which take the wind out of the sails of both umpires and managers. Gone are the days when a manager's first instinct was to charge out onto the field. Now he waits for his guys in the back room to tell him if he has a gripe and even then all he does is ask for a replay.

I'm not saying it comes out even for any particular at bat. Heck, no. Pitchers and hitters both can get bad calls that dramatically affect an at bat. What I'm saying is that over the long haul it does all even out. Good pitchers persevere/adapt and so do good hitters. Good teams--like ours, with great hitting and marginal pitching--win and bad teams lose regardless of missed calls by the homeplate umpires.

Is it relevant to this discussion to point out that Kelly has been sent back to Pawtucket? The OP opined that Kelly got screwed by the umps, which he (the OP) found infuriating. Apparently, the Sox front office thinks the real problem wasn't with the ump but with the pitcher. I say again, umpires do not prevent good pitchers from getting hitters out nor good hitters from getting hits. They also, sadly, can't keep bad pitchers from getting torched. I remain unconvinced that, had all balls and strikes been called perfectly--by a machine or otherwise--last night, Kelly would have done any better. I am of course no expert, but one has to assume that the manager, pitching coach, and FO are.

Undeniably. But his shelf life is much shorter and, one presumes from those advocating his departure, is injury prone. Also, Iglesias was already well established as a terrific defensive SS. The question was whether he could hit. Most people think that the two positions where you can give up some hitting to get better defense are SS and C.

Terrible blunder by the FO. I read right here on talksox--heck, right here on this thread--that the problem wasn't with Kelly but with that blind, stupid umpire behind the plate. If MLB would only go with balls and strikes called by cameras and computers--thus providing great pitchers like Kelly with a pure strike zone--he would be competing for the Cy Young every year.

Probably so. One more reason to appreciate what John Henry has done for this franchise. They've won three WS after 86 years of nothing and are on their third GM and third manager and today have one of the best lineups the Sox have ever had. The pitching is a little scary, granted.

When Moncada is close, I'm fine with trading Pedroia. But right now this team, right now, is winning--leading the AL East--after two losing seasons. And Pedroia is one of the reasons why. Holt isn't. Also, if you are so confident that Pedroia will go on the DL again--maybe for the rest of the season--don't you think other teams have the same thought? Do you remember Iglesias in 2013, the absolutely brilliant defensive SS who some claimed could singlehandedly lower the team ERA by a run a game? There are still guys who say we shouldn't have traded him. Detroit got him and one assumes still love him at SS. At 26 he should give them a lot of good years. Do you remember who we got for Iglesias? Jake Peavy. My guess is that we might get another Jake Peavy for Pedroia. And, unlike 2013, we don't have two good back-ups (Drew and Bogaerts).

A good point. They do disagree, but discreetly. Hitters, on the other hand, are more than happy to make their displeasure known although some, like Bogaerts, seem to do it in a very polite manner. Plus there is only one catcher, but there are 9 batters in the lineup.

For the record, I would not object to trading Pedroia for a #2 starter, which right now is a compelling need. I do not, however, think Holt would be "fine" at 2B or anywhere near as good as Pedroia in the field or at bat. Think about the simple fact that Holt has mostly played LF and has been platooned with Young at that. Can you see platooning a secondbaseman? Because I don't think a good starter is available in return for Pedroia, I am a strong believer in not trading him. Right now it's the lineup that is winning games. Heck, to date it's maybe close to the best lineup the Sox have ever had (I have no proof of this assertion). And I think Pedroia is a key part of the lineup and the infield defense--like Derek Jeter was for the Yankees only a better fielder.