This Week In Baseball: 5/12-5/18

[Brett Favre 0]

I figure the rule would be fair cause if a ball bounces in fair territory and then goes foul (past the third baseline) than it's a fair ball. I'm not sure if it would necessarily be a home run though.

[EVIL~! alkeiper 0]

The ball is fair if it lands in fair territory past the third/first base. Having established a fair ball by hitting the top of the wall, it's a home run if it does not come back.

[Dandy 0]

You know what, I don't think there's a truly dominant rotation anywhere in the Central. I can't even name Houston's 4 and 5. The Cardinals' rotation is sketchy now, but will improve. I don't know what the deal is with Rich Hill, but I heard he can't find the strike zone in Iowa, which is scary news. I think I actually like Harang/Volquez/Cueto as the second best 1-2-3 punch behind Zambrano/Lilly/Dempster.

Sheets, Gallardo, and Suppan are pretty decent, too, but they might not be the 1-2-3. Gallardo hasn't pitched the entire year, either. Zambrano and Dempster have had great starts, but I think I would rather have Harang and Cueto as a 1-2 punch. Ted Lilly definitely puts his team in a better position to win than Arroyo, Belisle, or Cueto, so I agree they are the best 1-2-3 in the Central.

[CanadianChris 0]

Looks like it did hit the pole somehow. Too bad they couldn't do like Nippy Jones and show the umpire the ball with the mark on it.

[Guest Desensitized]

Sheets, Gallardo, and Suppan are pretty decent, too, but they might not be the 1-2-3. Gallardo hasn't pitched the entire year, either.

Gallardo got a handful of starts in before he tore his ACL. As someone who keeps an eye on the Brewers, that's too bad, because by all accounts he's a great guy with loads of potential (good hitting pitcher as well, which I like), but as a Cubs fan, he can cash in on that potential later, thanks.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3400302

The Chicago White Sox fired director of player personnel David Wilder on Friday along with two other scouts in the club's Latin American operation.

 

Victor Mateo and Domingo Toribio also were terminated after a two-month investigation by Major League Baseball's Department of Investigations, the team said.

 

"It's very disappointing. This is a tough day," general manager Kenny Williams said Friday in San Francisco, where the White Sox opened a three-game interleague series against the Giants. "It's not consistent with (owner) Jerry Reinsdorf, myself or what the White Sox organization stands for." Maybe these guys didn't claim that the newspapers, television stations, and even the weather were biased against them, since that's basically what the Sox stand for.

 

Findings from baseball's investigation have been turned over to federal authorities. The White Sox said the three were dismissed "for actions in Latin America that were violations of club policy and standards" but did not elaborate.

If these guys were too deplorable for the Chicago White Sox, I don't wanna know what they did. That whole organization is a bushel of bad apples. "What the White Sox organization stands for" basically covers claiming that the umpires, newspapers, national media, and even the weather (Hawk recently groused that it's suspiciously sunny at Wrigley and gloomy at Comiskey) are conspiring to bring them down. Maybe these scouts failed to compare the word counts of game recaps in the Trib.

[strummer 0]

Ryan Church just hit one into Reggie Jackson territory.

 

Damn that was a bomb

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Cincy has been on a roll lately, and that can be chalked up to quality starts from the pitchers and decent enough work from the bullpen. The offense is still not up to speed, so it will be difficult to keep this momentum going until that area comes around. They are only 6 games back with plenty of time to go, but it is a pretty big hill to climb if the Cubs continue to play the way they have been. If the Reds play .600 baseball (a major improvement over what they have done so far) the rest of the way, the would finish with 92 wins. The Cubs could play .480 baseball the rest of the way and still beat them. Making up that 6 game difference looks a lot worse when you look at it that way.

 

But with that same math would the Reds theoretically qualify for the Wild Card? I know you just did the math inside of the Central but what if that math is applied to the other WC contenders from today's standings (which would be the Mets/Phillies/Cards/Astros/Dodgers).

 

I agree that the Reds have me pretty happy right now and it's nice to see the pitching coming together. I'd agree that the offense needs a jolt. Ken Griffey Jr. never plays well when I watch his games, although he did have a crucial RBI single in the middle of the game. I liked what I saw out of Janish today, especially in working the counts and showing patience at the plate, but just wonder whether he can maintain his performance level (not of course at the 3 for 3 level he played at today because that's not realistic but somewhere close wouldn't hurt) in the coming weeks.

[Smartly Pretty 0]

And I commend Joe Morgan for calling these games without eyesight (saying the ball caromed off the pole when it clearly didn't) and brainpower (saying he didn't think instant replay would work in cases like that because he personally doesn't think it should ever be used). Truly his working through these handicaps should be an inspiration to us all.

 

Do you think we, and when I say we I mean the internet as a whole, could only yell at Joe Morgan when he's actually wrong? The ball did hit the foul pole, the ball had a black mark on it and the pole had a little mark on it and they matched up. And he didn't say instant replay wouldn't work in cases like this, he says he doesn't want instant replay because managers would want every play reviewed.

 

 

[Guest Desensitized]

I don't want instant replay either. What puzzles me is that the moderates are like "well...fine...but only for fair/foul calls," which are--for the most part--pretty cut-and-dry. The umps can eyeball that and get it right. If you were making only one allowance for replay, it would have to be balls and strikes, and I'm not even sure I want that. The human error involved in getting good breaks and bad breaks pretty much evens out, and you get the same end result as every call being laser-precise: you win some, you lose some.

 

EDIT: unless you're the white sox and the umpires are out to get you at every turn hawk and farmio told me so

[Guest Smues]

I wouldn't mind limited replay for fair or foul calls, or even limited to homerun or foul calls. Yeah they get it right most of the time, but it wouldn't hurt the game to take a minute to review blown homerun calls. If having it in place would have prevented the douchebag New York kid (I refuse to use his name, yes I'm a very mature person) Baltimore play, then it's a good thing IMO.

[Dobbs 3K 0]

I could see limited replay calls during the playoffs for stuff like home runs, maybe fair/foul rulings.

[CanadianChris 0]

And that's all it should be used for. I don't understand anyone who opposes instant replay on the basis that it'll be used to review every single call.

[MarvinisaLunatic 0]

I for one think instant replay is only about..oh..about almost 12 years too late.

[Dandy 0]

One person in the booth relaying to the umps that they were obviously wrong should do it. No manager appeals or anything like that. "Hey dumbass, he trapped the ball." Balls and strikes are subjective to each individual umpire's strike zone and should not be reviewed. That is part of the game. But when the umps can't clearly see something several hundred feet away in some instances, they get a little help from above.

[Dandy 0]

Cincy has been on a roll lately, and that can be chalked up to quality starts from the pitchers and decent enough work from the bullpen. The offense is still not up to speed, so it will be difficult to keep this momentum going until that area comes around. They are only 6 games back with plenty of time to go, but it is a pretty big hill to climb if the Cubs continue to play the way they have been. If the Reds play .600 baseball (a major improvement over what they have done so far) the rest of the way, the would finish with 92 wins. The Cubs could play .480 baseball the rest of the way and still beat them. Making up that 6 game difference looks a lot worse when you look at it that way.

 

But with that same math would the Reds theoretically qualify for the Wild Card? I know you just did the math inside of the Central but what if that math is applied to the other WC contenders from today's standings (which would be the Mets/Phillies/Cards/Astros/Dodgers).

Not necessarily. St. Louis is only two games behind Chicago, and there are 7 teams tied or ahead of Cincy in the Wild Card standings, and Milwaukee is only one game behind them. The Reds have to play scorching baseball the rest of the way and hope that all of those teams play much worse than them. Winning the series' with teams in their own division will be the key way for them to gain ground, obviously. I think Al has linked to a site that has updated probabilities of whther teams win their division or a Wild Card spot. Perhaps he could show us again.

 

Edit---I found it. Reds have slightly better than 7% chance of winning their division, and slightly lower than 8% at the Wild Card. They thus have a 15% of making the playoffs in some fashion. This will obviously change as the season goes on, but that shows you what an uphill climb they have.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

Thanks for posting that Dandy, that's some interesting stuff. Anyone have the link for this site?

[Dandy 0]

Damn, I thought I posted the link along with it. Here you go:

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/ps_odds.php

 

If you are not familiar with this, this is a bunch of simulations and the average of those simulations. It changes as the year goes along due to current trends in teams, injuries, trades, etc. and should be viewed for what it is, computer simulations. They play the games for a reason, but my point still stands...The Cubs would have to play some awful baseball not to make it to the playoffs.

[Guest Desensitized]

And that's all it should be used for.

Why? Why is fair/foul, which is almost always called correctly with the naked eye, the ONE AND ONLY baseball occurrence that should be subject to technology-assisted review? All of the really egregious blown calls are balls/strikes or safe/out. That's where the action is, and that's where the controversy is: not hundreds of feet from the umpires, but right in front of their faces. Foul-pole home runs and foul balls represent a tiny fraction of calls that fans and managers lose their shit over. This is like saying "okay, football should have instant replay...but only for 5-yard neutral zone infractions. I mean, it's not a game of robots."

[Dandy 0]

Hundreds of feet from the umpires was meant for the "did he catch it or trap it?" call that gets by them often, or was it a home run/in play off the wall/fan interference calls that come up several times a year. I feel that there are things that should be subject to replay (without appeals by managers) and things that should not be subject to replay. My list:

 

Subject to Replay

-Outs (except for strikeouts) This covers tags, bang-bang plays, catches, and interference calls.

-Home run or not (as stated above)

-Fair or foul

-Was the batter hit or not

 

Not Subject to Replay

-Balls and strikes

-Balks

[Dandy 0]

There is a really good debate going on at espn.com about whether or not the National League has finally caught up with and passed the American League to be the better league "right now." There are good arguments coming up, and some fans from Boston that refuse to listen to anyone's comments that say the AL is not better because their team plays there. Still, it's been a good debate. Any interest in having that debate in another thread here? I didn't want to start the thread if no one wanted to discuss it, but if several folks want to talk about it, I'd be up for it.

[Danville_Wrestling 0]

I think there might be some merit to that argument when you look at the consistency and performance thus far this season of several National League ball clubs such as Arizona. However, I'm always biased to the NL, not because the Reds play there, but because I hate the DH rule, it takes the strategy out of the game as far as I'm concerned and that's what I love to see in baseball games.

[Guest Desensitized]

Right now, the NL is the better league. There's an article at the NY Post handling this. It's the roids, and the fact that the AL has older players: without amphetamines and steroids to keep the aging sluggers going, they're faltering. Take a look.

 

some fans from Boston that refuse to listen to anyone's comments that say the AL is not better because their team plays there.

Well, that's because Boston fans are retarded.