2013 MLB Discussion

I dont know if the call was right (I dont think Middlebrooks raised his heels at least) but the Sox deserved to lose that game.  First by having Workman bat in the 9th over Napoli just to take him out quickly in the bottom of the inning, then by pitching to Jay and Salty making that throw.  Would have much rather taken my chances with Kozma at the plate, he couldnt hit air all night.  Tough game to watch as a Sox fan.

 
GamerDude316 said:
I dont know if the call was right (I dont think Middlebrooks raised his heels at least) but the Sox deserved to lose that game. First by having Workman bat in the 9th over Napoli just to take him out quickly in the bottom of the inning, then by pitching to Jay and Salty making that throw. Would have much rather taken my chances with Kozma at the plate, he couldnt hit air all night. Tough game to watch as a Sox fan.
Click to expand...
I think it was the correct call. I've watched the replay a few times and what I saw was Middlebrooks look at where the ball was after he had dived and raised the bottom half of his legs. Whether or not it was intentional is up for debate but it was clearly interfering with the runner.
 
From what was being said last night intent doesn't matter.  If it is interference it is interference intended or not.  I don't think it was intended, but interference it was and had it not happened chances are the run would have been made. 

 
Great game last night and unfortunately it gets tainted by a "questionable" call at the end.  There was nothing questionable about it. Let's pretend the ball gets thrown away to the same spot and Middlebrooks doesn't fall to the ground in front of Craig.  You know what happens?...Craig comes around and scores EASILY and Boston is in an uproar about what a shitty decision their catcher made and how Middlebrooks let's the ball get by him.  Instead we have to hear everyone trying to blame the umps (who made the right call) and ignoring the mistakes the Sox made.  

 
tonyv4 said:
I think it was the correct call. I've watched the replay a few times and what I saw was Middlebrooks look at where the ball was after he had dived and raised the bottom half of his legs. Whether or not it was intentional is up for debate but it was clearly interfering with the runner.
Click to expand...
I dont think it was intentional but somebody very correctly pointed out the rule this morning. It says that it is obstruction if the player is not "in the act of the fielding the ball" and the definition clearly states that if the fielder goes for the ball and misses, the second the ball is past him he is not considered to be "in the act of fielding the ball". So, it was the right call by the umps but the rule itself seems pretty questionable since I dont know what else Middlebrooks was supposed to do there.

AngryDragon888 said:
Great game last night and unfortunately it gets tainted by a "questionable" call at the end. There was nothing questionable about it. Let's pretend the ball gets thrown away to the same spot and Middlebrooks doesn't fall to the ground in front of Craig. You know what happens?...Craig comes around and scores EASILY and Boston is in an uproar about what a shitty decision their catcher made and how Middlebrooks let's the ball get by him. Instead we have to hear everyone trying to blame the umps (who made the right call) and ignoring the mistakes the Sox made.
Click to expand...
As a Sox fan, I can easily admit that there were a lot of mistakes made to set themselves up for the loss. Napoli should have hit for Workman in the top of the 9th, especially since Workman only went 1 out in the bottom of the inning anyway. Also, Jay should have been walked to load the bases and Salty should have never made that throw. I'd have much rather taken my chances with Kozma who couldnt hit air all night.

 
GamerDude316 said:
Also, Jay should have been walked to load the bases and Salty should have never made that throw. I'd have much rather taken my chances with Kozma who couldnt hit air all night.
Click to expand...

I couldn't believe it when they didn't walk Jay. I've watched Kozma all year and he is on the team for his defense (despite what happened in game one) and is terrible offensively. Let's not forget that he struck out looking earlier in the game with the bases loaded and no outs which was the key out that let the Sox off the hook that inning. You can't watch strike three on a border line pitch (which was a strike) especially with the pitcher behind you in that situation. Jay isn't a big threat either, but he comes up big every once in a while and it would have set up the opportunity for a double play if he was walked.

Anyway, here's to hoping that tonight's game is played clean on both sides.

 
I think it was the right call for Uehara to pitch to Jay. Uehara gets tons of strikeouts and popups. Get strike one, then pitch to the corners - or just go straight for the corners on the first pitch. If you walk him, you walk him. Maybe he chases and whiffs. Or you make your pitches and he makes weak contact or Ks looking. That's the benefit of having a pitcher on the mound with excellent command.

What was dumb was playing no doubles OF defense with Molina at first and Craig at the plate. Those are two of the slowest and worst baserunners in the league, and Craig has a foot injury on top of that. Play straight up d and that's a boring single to left, and Jay's up with runners on 1st and 2nd. Molina probably wouldn't score on most singles, so you can pitch Jay normally. The groundball he hit would have been a routine double play.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It was a good win.  Lackey, while not a lights out game, pitched well enough to get the job done, and that's all we could've asked for.

 
I'm just glad I won't have to hear Boston strong anymore.  I heard it enough during the finals for the Stanley Cup.  I was only able to watch most of the world series after the 2nd or 3rd so I didn't see the interviews till last night when I was able to watch from the start of the pregame show.  I thought I might have been able to get away with not hearing it, but when I turned on the TV first thing I hear is Boston strong.  Now I'm sure the players will say it was won for the victims and that they did it for the city.  I'm calling bullshit on that.  The team did if for themselves just like every other team that wins it.

 
I'm just glad I won't have to hear Boston strong anymore. I heard it enough during the finals for the Stanley Cup. I was only able to watch most of the world series after the 2nd or 3rd so I didn't see the interviews till last night when I was able to watch from the start of the pregame show. I thought I might have been able to get away with not hearing it, but when I turned on the TV first thing I hear is Boston strong. Now I'm sure the players will say it was won for the victims and that they did it for the city. I'm calling bullshit on that. The team did if for themselves just like every other team that wins it.


This.
It seems like "Boston Strong" stopped being about the victims a long time ago.
 
Victorino's deal looked like the worst in the offseason, now it's one hell of a bargain.  It's good that he got another ring, he wasn't going to get it with the Phillies.

 
sendme said:
I'm just glad I won't have to hear Boston strong anymore. I heard it enough during the finals for the Stanley Cup. I was only able to watch most of the world series after the 2nd or 3rd so I didn't see the interviews till last night when I was able to watch from the start of the pregame show. I thought I might have been able to get away with not hearing it, but when I turned on the TV first thing I hear is Boston strong. Now I'm sure the players will say it was won for the victims and that they did it for the city. I'm calling bullshit on that. The team did if for themselves just like every other team that wins it.
Click to expand...
FloodyFloats said:
This.
It seems like "Boston Strong" stopped being about the victims a long time ago.
Click to expand...
Glad I'm not the only person tired of it. Thought it was a little too much when they kept repeating it while the Bruins and Celtics were in the playoffs. Months removed now, it's quite enough.

DestroVega said:
Congrats to the Red Sox, but the Ortiz love is sickening considering MLB buries every other steroid user.
Click to expand...
Bingo...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
sendme said:
I'm just glad I won't have to hear Boston strong anymore. I heard it enough during the finals for the Stanley Cup. I was only able to watch most of the world series after the 2nd or 3rd so I didn't see the interviews till last night when I was able to watch from the start of the pregame show. I thought I might have been able to get away with not hearing it, but when I turned on the TV first thing I hear is Boston strong. Now I'm sure the players will say it was won for the victims and that they did it for the city. I'm calling bullshit on that. The team did if for themselves just like every other team that wins it.
Click to expand...

Sorry but if the Pats make the playoffs (and i would guess they will), they will bring it out again. No one trades in tragedy like Boston. it's distasteful.

 
DestroVega said:
Congrats to the Red Sox, but the Ortiz love is sickening considering MLB buries every other steroid user.
Click to expand...
You're creating a bit of a false equivalency between guys who have been caught and suspended (sometimes repeatedly) and a guy whose only link to steroids was appearing in one list 10 years ago. Never suspended, never even mentioned in the same breath as steroids since in any official capacity. Yet, you can't prove a negative, so people will always try to hang it around his neck.

You should probably find something more productive to be sickened about.

usickenme said:
Sorry but if the Pats make the playoffs (and i would guess they will), they will bring it out again. No one trades in tragedy like Boston. it's distasteful.
Click to expand...
Right, because New York never commercialized 9/11. I find the "Boston Strong" thing as ridiculous as the rest of you, it should have been a week-long thing to commemorate the victims and that's it, but to pretend any other city wouldn't have done the exact same thing is just silly.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm not trying to say its just Boston that does it. I'm sure my post sounded like that. Unless you are going to keep your name off the trophy and put the victim(s)/person(s) it is dedicated to you're not doing it for them. That goes for every team in every sport.
 
bvharris said:
Right, because New York never commercialized 9/11. I find the "Boston Strong" thing as ridiculous as the rest of you, it should have been a week-long thing to commemorate the victims and that's it, but to pretend any other city wouldn't have done the exact same thing is just silly.
Click to expand...

speaking of "false equivalency" .. not in the same ballpark. Boston has always had a bit of a "little brother" syndrome to NYC and saw their own chance to use a tragedy for sports cheerleading. Clearly the social media aspect reduces tragedies to hashtags too. It is for the victims of the event, not some drunken slob screaming it over a Sox, game 6 win

that said, seeing your team win it all is cool and congrats. (even if it means more 'B' hats around)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
usickenme said:
speaking of "false equivalency" .. not in the same ballpark. Boston has always had a bit of a "little brother" syndrome to NYC and saw their own chance to use a tragedy for sports cheerleading. Clearly the social media aspect reduces tragedies to hashtags too. It is for the victims of the event, not some drunken slob screaming it over a Sox, game 6 win
Click to expand...
If you think I was equating the Marathon bombings with 9/11, you missed my point. I was objecting to your notion that "no one trades in tragedy like Boston" which is a completely baseless and hollow assertion. Commercializing and/or re-purposing tragic events (including as part of sports fandom) is hardly a phenomenon which sprung into existence with the Marathon bombings. Whether you think it's a good thing or not (and I agree with you that it's not), it's hardly something which is endemic to Boston, which is the part of your post I objected to. If a comparable tragedy happened in St. Louis, some people there would have done the same thing.

usickenme said:
that said, seeing your team win it all is cool and congrats. (even if it means more 'B' hats around)
Click to expand...
Thank you, it's very cool. Especially since it will hopefully be the season which ensures that Bobby Valentine never gets another job in professional baseball.

 
Ah well... It was a fun series, even if the Cardinals didn't win or play all that well. They're still a young team (the 5th youngest in the MLB) and it's only the manager's second year. Hopefully they do better next year and learn from it. The Red Sox wanted it badly, the Cards played like it was just another series.

 
If you think I was equating the Marathon bombings with 9/11, you missed my point. I was objecting to your notion that "no one trades in tragedy like Boston" which is a completely baseless and hollow assertion. Commercializing and/or re-purposing tragic events (including as part of sports fandom) is hardly a phenomenon which sprung into existence with the Marathon bombings. Whether you think it's a good thing or not (and I agree with you that it's not), it's hardly something which is endemic to Boston, which is the part of your post I objected to. If a comparable tragedy happened in St. Louis, some people there would have done the same thing.



Thank you, it's very cool. Especially since it will hopefully be the season which ensures that Bobby Valentine never gets another job in professional baseball.



Hell as a St. Louis fan I know the cards would have done the same. You could say they did with stan the man. Hell the blues did it 2 or 3 years ago for two players that were killed in the plane crash in Russia. I don't think they made it known as much as other teams have done with tragedies, but they do it.

Still Congrats have to go out to Boston and it is nice that they won at home and not the road for once. Still would have liked for St. Louis to win. I'm also not happy fox cut off the Dropkick Murphy's. I was really wanting to see them play.
 
Relive the season with the 25 Funniest Photos from this past season.

I particular like Old Mike Trout, the Konerko pic, and the poll question with Yankees star Mike Trout, White Sox 3B Manny Machado, and Detroit's OF phenom Bryce Hunter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DNukem170 said:
Apparently the Braves got approval for a new stadium. In the meantime...they will play in Cobb County. K...
Click to expand...
It's not in the meantime. They are building a new stadium in Cobb County (10 miles from downtown Atlanta) and moving there for the 2017 season. There 20 year lease on Turner field is up in 2016, and it seems they were frustrated with the city/Fulton county in terms of not being willing to improve infrastructure for getting to the stadium, or doing anything to develop the terrible neighborhoods (some of the poorest and highest crime, no restaurants or entertainment near Turner Field etc.). Especially after all the money the city and county is throwing into the Falcons new stadium.

So I guess I can't blame them. But I hate seeing teams move out of the city, to the richer, whiter suburbs. I kind of doubt I'll still be living in ATL by 2017, but I'd definitely go to fewer games unless I happened to move to the NW metro area as it's a pain to get to with traffic from the city. Even worse since I'm moving 10 or so miles east of the city soon.

But it is hard to argue with the location based on the 2012 ticket sales map the Braves posted on their site.

TicketSales_Web.jpg

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tim Hudson signs with the Giants. I hate to see him leave the Braves, but he probably never would've gotten 2y/23m from Atlanta. Hopefully this means they're throwing as much money as possible at Brian McCann.

 
CHOOCH signed for way too much money for an old, aging catcher. But, hey, that is one less team out on McCann, which means, if JD wants to get his man, that McCann should be a lock for the Rangers. I see him getting anywhere in between 5/85 or 6/100-110. 

In other minor news, Reds Sign Skip Schumaker and Yankees sign Brendan Ryan. 

 
Saying Ruben Amaro Jr. signed someone for way too much is like saying water is wet.  That's his M.O.  It's fucking frustrating to be a Phillies fan.

 
That's a pretty crazy trade.  If you guys needed a first baseman that bad, you should have called Ruben, you might have gotten Ryan Howard for free.  Howard's contract looks great next to Fielder's.

 
Detroit is sending 30 million along with Fielder to Texas. That makes the difference between what the two players are making not all that much. 

Prince should love to hit in Texas, even if it doesn't have the jetstream like it used to.

 
So...exactly why did they get rid of Prince again? I know their defense at 2B was bad, but that is a little easier to replace.
 
Detroit's stadium is death for a Left Handed Power Hitter. The Ballpark In Arlington, even with a castrated jetstream, is very good for one.

 
DNukem170 said:
So...exactly why did they get rid of Prince again? I know their defense at 2B was bad, but that is a little easier to replace.
Click to expand...
Cabrera can't play 3B, he started breaking down this year. Plus, having two 300 pound 1B/DH players on your roster making over $20 million a year in their 30s is a recipe for disaster.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Feeding the Abscess said:
Cabrera can't play 3B, he started breaking down this year. Plus, having two 300 pound 1B/DH players on your roster making over $20 million a year in their 30s is a recipe for disaster.
Click to expand...
Eh, I guess I can understand, but I would think they would want to get rid of Martinez over Fielder, unless both Prince and Miggy refused to be a full-time DH.
 
Martinez was signed to a 4 year/50 million dollar deal that expires after this year. 

The Verlander deal is about to kick in, they have to reup Max, and Miggy is going to need a new deal soon.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Because the Angels are a terrible organization, they traded Peter Bourjos and their #2 prospect for David Freese and Fernado Salas. Not only do they make their farm system that much more terrible, they actually add onto their bloated payroll because of it. 

It should also be noted that Peter Bourjos has a higher career Isolated Slugging than David Freese. Time for the Rangers to swoop in and get Bourjos, a la Mike Napoli. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top