[quote]therajraj wrote:
Red Sox 2-10 now first team to reach double digit losses.
:)[/quote]
You must be pumped that your Blue Jays were the ones to give them that 10th loss too, dick.
[quote]johnman18 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Red Sox 2-10 now first team to reach double digit losses.
:)[/quote]
You must be pumped that your Blue Jays were the ones to give them that 10th loss too, dick.[/quote]
lol yeah. Tomorrow probably won’t be any better for you guys, Beckett is a notorious Blue Jays punching bag.
In the end it won’t make a difference though, Red Sox will still win the AL East.
You watch Raj; as much as I hate the Red Sox, they’re going to get hot as shit pretty soon here. I hope I’m wrong, but I’m fairly certain I’ll be right, which angers me.
This is why I love the grand old game: day baseball.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]johnman18 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Red Sox 2-10 now first team to reach double digit losses.
:)[/quote]
You must be pumped that your Blue Jays were the ones to give them that 10th loss too, dick.[/quote]
lol yeah. Tomorrow probably won’t be any better for you guys, Beckett is a notorious Blue Jays punching bag.
In the end it won’t make a difference though, Red Sox will still win the AL East. [/quote]
I don’t know man. This is a pretty damn rough start. I think I might have to thank my lucky stars if they just get the wild card.
162 games is a shitload of games, still PLENTY of time to turn it around for Red Sox fans. The Phillies were 6 games back or so to the Braves in August of last year and still wound up winning the division by 6 games.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
162 games is a shitload of games, still PLENTY of time to turn it around for Red Sox fans. The Phillies were 6 games back or so to the Braves in August of last year and still wound up winning the division by 6 games. [/quote]
I know. If the Sox went 2-10 or whatever in the middle of June it would be the seventh or eighth story on SportsCenter on a Thursday.
I know, but you know us Red Sox fans 
Yeah they’ll still win it.
It’s fun to watch the Red Sox start so poorly though.
Especially when everyone was handing them the pennant before a pitch was thrown.
But I still think Lackey/Beckett/Dice-K are all garbage. They’ll get wins, but only because the offense will put up 6+ runs a game for them.
If any of you guys want to see the overturned call
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110415&content_id=17815384&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb
Cmon Raj, have faith. The Blue Jays will take the AL East this year. But FTR, I’d rather have the Yankees win instead of the Red Sox, if it came to that. I fucking hate every team from Boston.
Habs will sweep the Bruins.
Celtics are gonna bow out in the 2nd round.
Red Sox will finish 4th. I’d say last, but Baltimore is so hopeless. LOL
Not even gonna say anything about the Pats.
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So check this out. Today an initial 3 run home run call was overturned and ruled a foul ball (they went to instant replay).
The ball was hit LEFT of the line on the wall and RIGHT of Pesky’s pole.
Should it have been ruled a home run?
Also how retarded is it that the foul line and Pesky’s pole do not line up?
[/quote]
Home run, without a doubt.
To call it otherwise would mean that umpires would have to call any ball that hits all of the space left of the line and right of the pole all the way up the entire foul pole a foul ball. So, essentially, even if a ball hits off of the foul pole 50 feet up it should be called a foul ball (given the umpires call on this ball).
And yes, it’s uber retarded.[/quote]
I think im 100% confused by your post, please correct me if what Im about to write is way off.
Are you saying that the yellow painted line on the wall should be the ONLY boundary for homers? Meaning that umpires need to call balls that travel to the ‘foul side’ (the right of the pole) of the pole but within the 2,3,4,5,6" of space between the pole and painted line home runs?
Im most confused about your last sentance. In the situation you stated, why would a ball hitting the pole be foul, simply because the painted line is considered foul territory? The pole is in fair territory (positively supported by this case), so why would a ball that hits it be foul because of this call? I cant figure out what you mean.
My opinion on the matter? The pole is the TRUE marker of the boundary. The problem is that the wall is not ‘square’ to home plate and the person who painted the line on the wall was facing the wrong direction or standing in the wrong spot when he painted it. The line should have been drawn with the painters back to home plate. Foul ball.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So check this out. Today an initial 3 run home run call was overturned and ruled a foul ball (they went to instant replay).
The ball was hit LEFT of the line on the wall and RIGHT of Pesky’s pole.
Should it have been ruled a home run?
Also how retarded is it that the foul line and Pesky’s pole do not line up?
[/quote]
Home run, without a doubt.
To call it otherwise would mean that umpires would have to call any ball that hits all of the space left of the line and right of the pole all the way up the entire foul pole a foul ball. So, essentially, even if a ball hits off of the foul pole 50 feet up it should be called a foul ball (given the umpires call on this ball).
And yes, it’s uber retarded.[/quote]
I agree.
Also the line on the wall is the same line extending from home plate. Although the pole and the line on the wall SHOULD align, I would think the line on the wall takes precedence over the pole.[/quote]
The picture you posted creates an optical illusion. It doesnt look like the line on the wall is lined up right. It looks like the chalk and pole are lined up and the yellow on the wall is offset. Ive never been to fenway so I cant say for certain but I have a feeling that everything is lined up if you are standing on the chalk looking towards the pole. Problem is that the ball doesnt travel traight. Its always hooking or slicing.
So I have no idea if the lines are congruent or off a bit. If theyre off, then the pole and chalk should be the authority. If theyre all lined up then I dont know what to do. lol.
Fenway sucks
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So check this out. Today an initial 3 run home run call was overturned and ruled a foul ball (they went to instant replay).
The ball was hit LEFT of the line on the wall and RIGHT of Pesky’s pole.
Should it have been ruled a home run?
Also how retarded is it that the foul line and Pesky’s pole do not line up?
[/quote]
Home run, without a doubt.
To call it otherwise would mean that umpires would have to call any ball that hits all of the space left of the line and right of the pole all the way up the entire foul pole a foul ball. So, essentially, even if a ball hits off of the foul pole 50 feet up it should be called a foul ball (given the umpires call on this ball).
And yes, it’s uber retarded.[/quote]
I agree.
Also the line on the wall is the same line extending from home plate. Although the pole and the line on the wall SHOULD align, I would think the line on the wall takes precedence over the pole.[/quote]
The picture you posted creates an optical illusion. It doesnt look like the line on the wall is lined up right. It looks like the chalk and pole are lined up and the yellow on the wall is offset. Ive never been to fenway so I cant say for certain but I have a feeling that everything is lined up if you are standing on the chalk looking towards the pole. Problem is that the ball doesnt travel traight. Its always hooking or slicing.
So I have no idea if the lines are congruent or off a bit. If theyre off, then the pole and chalk should be the authority. If theyre all lined up then I dont know what to do. lol.
Fenway sucks
[/quote]
It looks like the line was shifted to make room for a fertilizer ad.
Either way, the ball was hit within one of the markings for foul territory.
My question is, SHOULD the umpires adjust their calls for botched field markings?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So check this out. Today an initial 3 run home run call was overturned and ruled a foul ball (they went to instant replay).
The ball was hit LEFT of the line on the wall and RIGHT of Pesky’s pole.
Should it have been ruled a home run?
Also how retarded is it that the foul line and Pesky’s pole do not line up?
[/quote]
Home run, without a doubt.
To call it otherwise would mean that umpires would have to call any ball that hits all of the space left of the line and right of the pole all the way up the entire foul pole a foul ball. So, essentially, even if a ball hits off of the foul pole 50 feet up it should be called a foul ball (given the umpires call on this ball).
And yes, it’s uber retarded.[/quote]
I agree.
Also the line on the wall is the same line extending from home plate. Although the pole and the line on the wall SHOULD align, I would think the line on the wall takes precedence over the pole.[/quote]
The picture you posted creates an optical illusion. It doesnt look like the line on the wall is lined up right. It looks like the chalk and pole are lined up and the yellow on the wall is offset. Ive never been to fenway so I cant say for certain but I have a feeling that everything is lined up if you are standing on the chalk looking towards the pole. Problem is that the ball doesnt travel traight. Its always hooking or slicing.
So I have no idea if the lines are congruent or off a bit. If theyre off, then the pole and chalk should be the authority. If theyre all lined up then I dont know what to do. lol.
Fenway sucks
[/quote]
It looks like the line was shifted to make room for a fertilizer ad.
Either way, the ball was hit within one of the markings for foul territory.
My question is, SHOULD the umpires adjust their calls for botched field markings?
[/quote]
Who knows? All I know is that they shouldn’t have any instant replay whatsoever. They’ve been playing professional baseball since 1867 without it and the game’s done just fine. It doesn’t need any improvements to placate the video gamer/casual fan.
3-10, Yeah Baby! Here we go haha. At least Beckett looks like he might be back to his old self but I’ll hold my breathe on that.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Yeah they’ll still win it.
It’s fun to watch the Red Sox start so poorly though.
Especially when everyone was handing them the pennant before a pitch was thrown.
But I still think Lackey/Beckett/Dice-K are all garbage. They’ll get wins, but only because the offense will put up 6+ runs a game for them.
[/quote]
I disagree with Beckett (drafted him in several fantasy leagues, think he bounces back strong this year) but I would add that I think Buchholz is very overrated - recognizing I am in the extreme minority saying that though.
That offense is still sick though. The only potential downfall is if Youk is still hurt and that’s why he’s slumping (if it’s just a random slump and he’s healthy, not worried).
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
99 pitch complete game shutout from Cliff Lee tonight. 123 pitch complete game from Halladay last night.
It feels good to be a Phillies fan right about now.[/quote]
I imagine it does, but it has to be a little worrisome that Oswalt left his last start with back problems considering his history of back injuries.
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Yeah they’ll still win it.
It’s fun to watch the Red Sox start so poorly though.
Especially when everyone was handing them the pennant before a pitch was thrown.
But I still think Lackey/Beckett/Dice-K are all garbage. They’ll get wins, but only because the offense will put up 6+ runs a game for them.
[/quote]
I disagree with Beckett (drafted him in several fantasy leagues, think he bounces back strong this year) but I would add that I think Buchholz is very overrated - recognizing I am in the extreme minority saying that though.
That offense is still sick though. The only potential downfall is if Youk is still hurt and that’s why he’s slumping (if it’s just a random slump and he’s healthy, not worried).[/quote]
Beckett has been a league a while, I just checked and this will be his 9th full season. I don’t know the statistics on it, but I’m guessing when pitchers have a bad year so late in their careers, the likelihood of bouncing back to what they once were is low. Especially when he’s on the wrong side of 30.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]LankyMofo wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So check this out. Today an initial 3 run home run call was overturned and ruled a foul ball (they went to instant replay).
The ball was hit LEFT of the line on the wall and RIGHT of Pesky’s pole.
Should it have been ruled a home run?
Also how retarded is it that the foul line and Pesky’s pole do not line up?
[/quote]
Home run, without a doubt.
To call it otherwise would mean that umpires would have to call any ball that hits all of the space left of the line and right of the pole all the way up the entire foul pole a foul ball. So, essentially, even if a ball hits off of the foul pole 50 feet up it should be called a foul ball (given the umpires call on this ball).
And yes, it’s uber retarded.[/quote]
I agree.
Also the line on the wall is the same line extending from home plate. Although the pole and the line on the wall SHOULD align, I would think the line on the wall takes precedence over the pole.[/quote]
The picture you posted creates an optical illusion. It doesnt look like the line on the wall is lined up right. It looks like the chalk and pole are lined up and the yellow on the wall is offset. Ive never been to fenway so I cant say for certain but I have a feeling that everything is lined up if you are standing on the chalk looking towards the pole. Problem is that the ball doesnt travel traight. Its always hooking or slicing.
So I have no idea if the lines are congruent or off a bit. If theyre off, then the pole and chalk should be the authority. If theyre all lined up then I dont know what to do. lol.
Fenway sucks
[/quote]
It looks like the line was shifted to make room for a fertilizer ad.
Either way, the ball was hit within one of the markings for foul territory.
My question is, SHOULD the umpires adjust their calls for botched field markings?
[/quote]
Who knows? All I know is that they shouldn’t have any instant replay whatsoever. They’ve been playing professional baseball since 1867 without it and the game’s done just fine. It doesn’t need any improvements to placate the video gamer/casual fan.[/quote]
Lets make the players leave their gloves on the field in between half innings to let the other side use them. Get rid of gloves with webs for that matter. Take away helmets too. Get rid of maple bats.
Im just messing with you, I know those things have a different impact compard to replay. I dont replay is bad at all. And you cant fight technology.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]scj119 wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Yeah they’ll still win it.
It’s fun to watch the Red Sox start so poorly though.
Especially when everyone was handing them the pennant before a pitch was thrown.
But I still think Lackey/Beckett/Dice-K are all garbage. They’ll get wins, but only because the offense will put up 6+ runs a game for them.
[/quote]
I disagree with Beckett (drafted him in several fantasy leagues, think he bounces back strong this year) but I would add that I think Buchholz is very overrated - recognizing I am in the extreme minority saying that though.
That offense is still sick though. The only potential downfall is if Youk is still hurt and that’s why he’s slumping (if it’s just a random slump and he’s healthy, not worried).[/quote]
Beckett has been a league a while, I just checked and this will be his 9th full season. I don’t know the statistics on it, but I’m guessing when pitchers have a bad year so late in their careers, the likelihood of bouncing back to what they once were is low. Especially when he’s on the wrong side of 30.
[/quote]
Having a bad year due to injury is different than having a bad year.