I’m indifferent to instant replay.
It doesn’t bother me, nor do I think the game really needs it.
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote
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]
I agree. If the technology is there, why wouldn’t you use it? I would rather they take 2 1/2 minutes to check a HR ball than lose 15 because a manager is out arguing with the ump.
Though I will say I HATE pitch trax; drives me nuts. I like the idea that different umps have their own strike zones and part of being a good pitcher is adjusting when you aren’t getting the low calls.
It was interesting how they reviewed calls for the little league WS; able to “challenge” it. I don’t think it would work for MLB, but an intriguing idea.
[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]
I’m guessing that pitchers with proven track records who are currently throwing in the mid-90’s with late movement and a good hard curve with sharp downward tilt to it and excellent command have an almost miniscule chance of NOT bouncing back. And the wrong side of 30? Lol, dude, I don’t even think he’s 31 yet. Do you actually WATCH baseball or do you just make these half-assed comments and evaluations based on some bizarre formula based on stats that you pull off the Internet? Anyone who has watched Beckett throw this year knows that he has a WAY better than avg chance of bouncing back.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote
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]
I agree. If the technology is there, why wouldn’t you use it? I would rather they take 2 1/2 minutes to check a HR ball than lose 15 because a manager is out arguing with the ump.
Though I will say I HATE pitch trax; drives me nuts. I like the idea that different umps have their own strike zones and part of being a good pitcher is adjusting when you aren’t getting the low calls.
It was interesting how they reviewed calls for the little league WS; able to “challenge” it. I don’t think it would work for MLB, but an intriguing idea.[/quote]
The instant replay has ruined football and it’ll ruin baseball. The casual fan already doesn’t like the pace of the game as it is; can you imagine how slow it’ll be if they have to stop the action 10 times a game to make sure a ball was fair or foul?
How many games can you think of in baseball where the outcome of the game rested solely on a blown call? There’s too many other opportunities within a game itself for one blown call to have that large of an impact and the ones that do have that large of an impact happen so rarely it isn’t worth changing the game for it. There’s 162 games; things have a tendency to even out over a season that long. In football they don’t even out and a bad call could make or break an entire season, which is why they have to have instant replay. How many games can we really think of that were forever changed due to a blown call?
Sure, there’s the non-perfect game last year, but that call didn’t affect who won and who lost. There are others, but in something like 144 years of baseball there are only a handful of blown calls (if that many) that really changed the course of a season for a team.
That’s what sports is all about: it’s the ultimate Greek tragedy played out for us to watch every single day if we choose to. You have two people or two groups of people trying to win, trying to achieve perfection despite knowing that they’ll never reach it. It’s about humans being placed in trying situations and seeing who comes out on top. As much as it sounds like a cliche, the human element is part of sports, especially baseball. I like the fact that every ump has a different strike zone; it keeps the sport that much more unique from day to day.
If the technology being there justifies using it in baseball, then why have umps at all? Why have fences? Why not remove the fences and use lasers to indicate when the ball has cleared whatever distance the team sets? You could have seats all the way down to field level all around the outfield that way. Why not just use a system of lasers that determines balls, strikes, foul balls and all of that? The technology is there.
[quote]SmilingPolitely wrote:
[quote]BONEZ217 wrote
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]
I agree. If the technology is there, why wouldn’t you use it? I would rather they take 2 1/2 minutes to check a HR ball than lose 15 because a manager is out arguing with the ump.
Though I will say I HATE pitch trax; drives me nuts. I like the idea that different umps have their own strike zones and part of being a good pitcher is adjusting when you aren’t getting the low calls.
It was interesting how they reviewed calls for the little league WS; able to “challenge” it. I don’t think it would work for MLB, but an intriguing idea.[/quote]
Also, I would MUCH rather watch a manager argue with an ump than watch an ump bent over some monitor. Baseball is great in that respect: how many other sports do the coaches interrupt play to argue with an ump right there on the field? And how many other sports’ officials let the coaches argue with them for a while? It’s great! You’d rather watch Tim McClellan bent over a monitor than watch Joe Maddon get ejected and then eject all the umps? No thanks. There’s a good enough reason right there to not ever use instant replay in baseball.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[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]
I’m guessing that pitchers with proven track records who are currently throwing in the mid-90’s with late movement and a good hard curve with sharp downward tilt to it and excellent command have an almost miniscule chance of NOT bouncing back. And the wrong side of 30? Lol, dude, I don’t even think he’s 31 yet. Do you actually WATCH baseball or do you just make these half-assed comments and evaluations based on some bizarre formula based on stats that you pull off the Internet? Anyone who has watched Beckett throw this year knows that he has a WAY better than avg chance of bouncing back.
[/quote]
Are you seriously basing your assessment on only 3 starts? Do you even follow the AL East?
The guy has basically rotated between up and down years since 2006 and had his worst year in 2010. He will also be 31 in less than a month and is returning from a back injury (wouldn’t surprise me if it flared up again this year) that plagued him all last season. LOL because of his stuff you are saying there is a minuscule chance he won’t bounce back? Then I guess by that logic AJ Burnett is also a lock to bounce back.
I won’t be convinced he’s back until he’s put up solid starts through 6 straight weeks.
Sharks lose and now the Gigantes lose in extras. NOT COOL.
I hope we put Zito on the 365 day DL.
I also think that the idea of allowing managers to challenge calls is horrendous. As it is in the NFL, the coaches can’t even challenge all bad calls, only some and none in the most crucial point where a bad call can have its biggest impact: within 2 minutes of the half or end. So, many bad calls can still go “unfixed” which defeats the purpose of whole system anyways. And by giving coaches only a couple challenges and penalizing them a timeout for a bad challenge, bad calls essentially come into part of the in-game strategy since they have to choose when they do and don’t use their challenges. As it stands in baseball right now, if a bad call happens the team has to move on and that’s it. The whole point of the instant replay thing is to REMOVE the effect that a bad call has on the outcome of the game, but the idea of a challenge system only serves to INCREASE the way in which bad calls become involved in the game.
On top of all that, without using a whole system of lasers and so on and removing umpires from the game entirely, there is virtually no way to remove the reality of bad calls from baseball, or any other sport. It’s a reality that always exists for each team/athlete and I think that part of what makes sports so compelling is seeing how athletes deal with adversity, even adversity surrounding bad calls. It’s exciting to see an athlete overcome that sort of thing and it’s also good theater to watch them crumble in the face of it.
For whatever reason, it seems like bad calls in baseball only affect the outcome of the game when the losing team allows it to; I can’t ever remember seeing a game end directly on a blown call that could have been reversed. I think good teams overcome bad calls more often than bad teams because part of what makes them better is their ability to deal with adversity and in that sense bad calls don’t really have much of an impact on who wins and loses anyways.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
Sharks lose and now the Gigantes lose in extras. NOT COOL.
I hope we put Zito on the 1460 day DL.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
Sharks lose and now the Gigantes lose in extras. NOT COOL.
I hope we put Zito on the 1460 day DL.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.[/quote]
We’re such a good team.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
Sharks lose and now the Gigantes lose in extras. NOT COOL.
I hope we put Zito on the 1460 day DL.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.[/quote]
We’re such a good team.[/quote]
Wanna fuck?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[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]
I’m guessing that pitchers with proven track records who are currently throwing in the mid-90’s with late movement and a good hard curve with sharp downward tilt to it and excellent command have an almost miniscule chance of NOT bouncing back. And the wrong side of 30? Lol, dude, I don’t even think he’s 31 yet. Do you actually WATCH baseball or do you just make these half-assed comments and evaluations based on some bizarre formula based on stats that you pull off the Internet? Anyone who has watched Beckett throw this year knows that he has a WAY better than avg chance of bouncing back.
[/quote]
Are you seriously basing your assessment on only 3 starts? Do you even follow the AL East?
The guy has basically rotated between up and down years since 2006 and had his worst year in 2010. He will also be 31 in less than a month and is returning from a back injury (wouldn’t surprise me if it flared up again this year) that plagued him all last season. LOL because of his stuff you are saying there is a minuscule chance he won’t bounce back? Then I guess by that logic AJ Burnett is also a lock to bounce back.
I won’t be convinced he’s back until he’s put up solid starts through 6 straight weeks.
[/quote]
I don’t get it. You say that he’s been inconsistent for the last several years, last year notwithstanding, and yet you don’t think that he’s very likely to “bounce back”, meaning you think he’s going to be less-than inconsistent this year?
I think he will be inconsistent at worst this year. What else other than his 3 starts can I really base that on? He’s never returned from a year of injury like last year’s at this age so I can only evaluate how I think he’ll do this year based on what I’ve seen since he came back from injury. His stuff looks much better than it’s been in a while and to me that is an indicator of health. He’s only 30, so I don’t think he’s at the point yet where he’s going to start breaking down so much that he’ll fail to “bounce back”. I don’t know what you saw or what has happened throughout his career that you’ve seen that I haven’t that makes you think he’s likely to be worse than inconsistent at the ripe old age of 30.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
Sharks lose and now the Gigantes lose in extras. NOT COOL.
I hope we put Zito on the 1460 day DL.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.[/quote]
We’re such a good team.[/quote]
Wanna fuck? [/quote]
Ehhh I’m feeling kinda tired.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[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]
I’m guessing that pitchers with proven track records who are currently throwing in the mid-90’s with late movement and a good hard curve with sharp downward tilt to it and excellent command have an almost miniscule chance of NOT bouncing back. And the wrong side of 30? Lol, dude, I don’t even think he’s 31 yet. Do you actually WATCH baseball or do you just make these half-assed comments and evaluations based on some bizarre formula based on stats that you pull off the Internet? Anyone who has watched Beckett throw this year knows that he has a WAY better than avg chance of bouncing back.
[/quote]
Are you seriously basing your assessment on only 3 starts? Do you even follow the AL East?
The guy has basically rotated between up and down years since 2006 and had his worst year in 2010. He will also be 31 in less than a month and is returning from a back injury (wouldn’t surprise me if it flared up again this year) that plagued him all last season. LOL because of his stuff you are saying there is a minuscule chance he won’t bounce back? Then I guess by that logic AJ Burnett is also a lock to bounce back.
I won’t be convinced he’s back until he’s put up solid starts through 6 straight weeks.
[/quote]
I don’t get it. You say that he’s been inconsistent for the last several years, last year notwithstanding, and yet you don’t think that he’s very likely to “bounce back”, meaning you think he’s going to be less-than inconsistent this year?
I think he will be inconsistent at worst this year. What else other than his 3 starts can I really base that on? He’s never returned from a year of injury like last year’s at this age so I can only evaluate how I think he’ll do this year based on what I’ve seen since he came back from injury. His stuff looks much better than it’s been in a while and to me that is an indicator of health. He’s only 30, so I don’t think he’s at the point yet where he’s going to start breaking down so much that he’ll fail to “bounce back”. I don’t know what you saw or what has happened throughout his career that you’ve seen that I haven’t that makes you think he’s likely to be worse than inconsistent at the ripe old age of 30.[/quote]
Beckett has been inconsistent year to year, going back and forth between consistent up years and inconsistent down years. Last year he had his worst year in the last 5 years some of that attributed to a back injury (though he still made 21 starts). I’m saying he won’t reproduce one of his good years because he is now older (yes 31 is not old but around the age many players numbers start to decline) and the fact he is returning from back problems (a type of injury not unlikely to return).
I agree he has looked great so far, but I’m not yet convinced he’s going to return back to his 2009 form.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
Sharks lose and now the Gigantes lose in extras. NOT COOL.
I hope we put Zito on the 1460 day DL.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.[/quote]
We’re such a good team.[/quote]
Wanna fuck? [/quote]
Ehhh I’m feeling kinda tired.
[/quote]
then go make me a sandwich before you fall asleep
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
Sharks lose and now the Gigantes lose in extras. NOT COOL.
I hope we put Zito on the 1460 day DL.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.[/quote]
We’re such a good team.[/quote]
Wanna fuck? [/quote]
Ehhh I’m feeling kinda tired.
[/quote]
then go make me a sandwich before you fall asleep[/quote]
You don’t own me! I want a divorce, and I’m taking the kids and half your money.
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
Sharks lose and now the Gigantes lose in extras. NOT COOL.
I hope we put Zito on the 1460 day DL.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.[/quote]
We’re such a good team.[/quote]
Wanna fuck? [/quote]
Ehhh I’m feeling kinda tired.
[/quote]
then go make me a sandwich before you fall asleep[/quote]
You don’t own me! I want a divorce, and I’m taking the kids and half your money.[/quote]
Divorce eh? What, are you one of these instant replay fans too?
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
[quote]WestCoast7 wrote:
Sharks lose and now the Gigantes lose in extras. NOT COOL.
I hope we put Zito on the 1460 day DL.[/quote]
Fixed that for you.[/quote]
We’re such a good team.[/quote]
Wanna fuck? [/quote]
Ehhh I’m feeling kinda tired.
[/quote]
then go make me a sandwich before you fall asleep[/quote]
You don’t own me! I want a divorce, and I’m taking the kids and half your money.[/quote]
Divorce eh? What, are you one of these instant replay fans too?[/quote]
No. I’m anti-replay anti-K-zone. Get that out of here.
[quote]DBCooper wrote:
I also think that the idea of allowing managers to challenge calls is horrendous. As it is in the NFL, the coaches can’t even challenge all bad calls, only some and none in the most crucial point where a bad call can have its biggest impact: within 2 minutes of the half or end. So, many bad calls can still go “unfixed” which defeats the purpose of whole system anyways. And by giving coaches only a couple challenges and penalizing them a timeout for a bad challenge, bad calls essentially come into part of the in-game strategy since they have to choose when they do and don’t use their challenges. As it stands in baseball right now, if a bad call happens the team has to move on and that’s it. The whole point of the instant replay thing is to REMOVE the effect that a bad call has on the outcome of the game, but the idea of a challenge system only serves to INCREASE the way in which bad calls become involved in the game.
On top of all that, without using a whole system of lasers and so on and removing umpires from the game entirely, there is virtually no way to remove the reality of bad calls from baseball, or any other sport. It’s a reality that always exists for each team/athlete and I think that part of what makes sports so compelling is seeing how athletes deal with adversity, even adversity surrounding bad calls. It’s exciting to see an athlete overcome that sort of thing and it’s also good theater to watch them crumble in the face of it.
For whatever reason, it seems like bad calls in baseball only affect the outcome of the game when the losing team allows it to; I can’t ever remember seeing a game end directly on a blown call that could have been reversed. I think good teams overcome bad calls more often than bad teams because part of what makes them better is their ability to deal with adversity and in that sense bad calls don’t really have much of an impact on who wins and loses anyways.[/quote]
My number 1 reason for thinking that some replay in baseball is good is Tim Donaghy. What do you think will happen to the sport of baseball if it comes out that C. B. Bucknor has been accepting bribes?
In the past, you could let bad calls slide, so to speak, because you didn’t have people at home watching the replay from 20 different angles and at various speeds. You can’t give the fans all of that information and then not expect them to question why nothing is being done to curtail botched calls.
And if it does come out that there were some unsavory business practices among the umps, that’s it. Game over. No amount of home runs is going to save the sport from that.
FTR, I’m not saying it is ideal. Hell I would love to see them get rid of the DH, so I’m not chomping at the bit for a major upheaval. But you have to wonder at what point protecting the purity of the game is going to force it to become obsolete.
[quote]BONEZ217 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 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]
This discussion is tough to have through the written word…
I agree with your opinion… The pole has to be the true marker, because if it wasn’t than balls that hit off of the foul pole (which would normally be considered a home run) would then be called foul balls because they were on the foul ball side of the drawn line.
I don’t plan on re reading my first post to see if that’s what I actually wrote, but that’s what I meant. 