7/30 D'Backs(Gosling) @ Cubs (Hill) 3:05 CT, WGN

[gflore34]

The pitch to Holly looked good to me on the overhead replay. Looked like it caught the corner. Way to good to take.

 

Not the Cubs didn't deserve to lose but, I loved the fact the Umpire managed to call several breaking balls late in the game for strikes yet, missed on at least 5 of Hill' breaking balls. Particularly two on Glaus prior to his HR in the 6th.

[Rusch33]

Our offense is in a coma right now.

[reggiemiller rules]

Not trying to start an argument but that pitch looked very good, and way to close to watch. I do think the pitch to Glaus was a strike too, so you can argue that he was inconsistant. But no way should Hollandsworth be watching that pitch in the 9th inning with 2 strikes

When you're hitting .206 in a month and your team is down by a run in the 9th, you need to take what the pitcher gives you. It was a slow pitch that missed the zone by about two inches and both the batter and the umpire had a clear look at it. Dowdy was just terribly inconsistent (and terrible) behind the plate for both teams today.

 

I agree, I do think the he was inconsistent today. But this looked like a really good pitch that Hollandsworth was not expecting to get on a 3-2 count. That said you cant watch a pitch anywhere near as close to that wiht 2 strikes. Especially if you know the ump has been inconsistent all day.

[OldHappyCubFan]

You can't honestly complain about these puny strike calls. It shoulden't come down to that. In the past 8 games, theres been complaining about umpires. I believe the past 10 games the Twins have had a better offense then the Cubs.

[JGalt73]

11 runs in 5 games...

[Satch80]

This game was lost because we aren't hitting and when we were gift wrapped a double, Lee gave it back with an incredibly stupid steal attempt. That inning basically took the wind out.

[jjgman21]

grrr... hate it when the site eats my posts.

 

the cliff notes version of what I had to say.

 

the Cubs made too many mistakes to win today, as they have done about 20 times this year. but the fact is, the umpires have cost the Cubs just as many.

 

this game didn't come down to one pitch to Hollandworth. but maybe if you combine the other bad call in that AB, the pitch early in the count to Jackson that was a strike to Hairston the inning before but a ball in his critical AB, the other two pitches I detailed earlier that were called differently from one half inning to the next, the missed strike three to Glaus before his dinger, the other pitches mentioned in the thread before I was watching the game, and a couple of others, that certainly can make a difference.

 

fact is, there are pitches that can go either way throughout a game, and they rarely go the Cubs way. "bad calls even out in the end" is a crock and I'm sick of rooting for a team (actually two teams because I'm a Bears fan too) that have to defeat two teams, game after game, year after year.

[jjgman21]

Not trying to start an argument but that pitch looked very good, and way to close to watch. I do think the pitch to Glaus was a strike too, so you can argue that he was inconsistant. But no way should Hollandsworth be watching that pitch in the 9th inning with 2 strikes

When you're hitting .206 in a month and your team is down by a run in the 9th, you need to take what the pitcher gives you. It was a slow pitch that missed the zone by about two inches and both the batter and the umpire had a clear look at it. Dowdy was just terribly inconsistent (and terrible) behind the plate for both teams today.

 

I agree, I do think the he was inconsistent today. But this looked like a really good pitch that Hollandsworth was not expecting to get on a 3-2 count. That said you cant watch a pitch anywhere near as close to that wiht 2 strikes. Especially if you know the ump has been inconsistent all day.

 

answer honestly...

 

is that called strike three on Jim Edmonds? for that matter, is that called strike three on John Mabry? for that matter, has that been called a strike on any Cardinal in your memory?

[CubinNY]

If you're gonna press your panic buttons, the time is now. This team is in dire trouble.

 

LOL, how long have you been pressing the panic button? :D

[PackLandVA]

Not trying to start an argument but that pitch looked very good, and way to close to watch. I do think the pitch to Glaus was a strike too, so you can argue that he was inconsistant. But no way should Hollandsworth be watching that pitch in the 9th inning with 2 strikes

When you're hitting .206 in a month and your team is down by a run in the 9th, you need to take what the pitcher gives you. It was a slow pitch that missed the zone by about two inches and both the batter and the umpire had a clear look at it. Dowdy was just terribly inconsistent (and terrible) behind the plate for both teams today.

 

I agree, I do think the he was inconsistent today. But this looked like a really good pitch that Hollandsworth was not expecting to get on a 3-2 count. That said you cant watch a pitch anywhere near as close to that wiht 2 strikes. Especially if you know the ump has been inconsistent all day.

 

answer honestly...

 

is that called strike three on Jim Edmonds? for that matter, is that called strike three on John Mabry? for that matter, has that been called a strike on any Cardinal in your memory?

 

What is that supposed to mean? :head scratch:

 

By the way, for those who want to argue whether or not it was a strike......anyone noticed Hollandsworth didn't take the bat off his shoulder once during the AB. Maybe that gives a little insight on his approach to the AB, and whether or not he was fooled by the pitch.

[oldcubsfan]

Not trying to start an argument but that pitch looked very good, and way to close to watch. I do think the pitch to Glaus was a strike too, so you can argue that he was inconsistant. But no way should Hollandsworth be watching that pitch in the 9th inning with 2 strikes

When you're hitting .206 in a month and your team is down by a run in the 9th, you need to take what the pitcher gives you. It was a slow pitch that missed the zone by about two inches and both the batter and the umpire had a clear look at it. Dowdy was just terribly inconsistent (and terrible) behind the plate for both teams today.

 

I agree, I do think the he was inconsistent today. But this looked like a really good pitch that Hollandsworth was not expecting to get on a 3-2 count. That said you cant watch a pitch anywhere near as close to that wiht 2 strikes. Especially if you know the ump has been inconsistent all day.

 

answer honestly...

 

is that called strike three on Jim Edmonds? for that matter, is that called strike three on John Mabry? for that matter, has that been called a strike on any Cardinal in your memory?

 

What is that supposed to mean? :head scratch:

 

By the way, for those who want to argue whether or not it was a strike......anyone noticed Hollandsworth didn't take the bat off his shoulder once during the AB. Maybe that gives a little insight on his approach to the AB, and whether or not he was fooled by the pitch.

Gee, did you notice that Murton swung at 3 breaking balls like he had never seen one before?

[gflore34]

Not trying to start an argument but that pitch looked very good, and way to close to watch. I do think the pitch to Glaus was a strike too, so you can argue that he was inconsistant. But no way should Hollandsworth be watching that pitch in the 9th inning with 2 strikes

When you're hitting .206 in a month and your team is down by a run in the 9th, you need to take what the pitcher gives you. It was a slow pitch that missed the zone by about two inches and both the batter and the umpire had a clear look at it. Dowdy was just terribly inconsistent (and terrible) behind the plate for both teams today.

 

I agree, I do think the he was inconsistent today. But this looked like a really good pitch that Hollandsworth was not expecting to get on a 3-2 count. That said you cant watch a pitch anywhere near as close to that wiht 2 strikes. Especially if you know the ump has been inconsistent all day.

 

answer honestly...

 

is that called strike three on Jim Edmonds? for that matter, is that called strike three on John Mabry? for that matter, has that been called a strike on any Cardinal in your memory?

 

What is that supposed to mean? :head scratch:

 

By the way, for those who want to argue whether or not it was a strike......anyone noticed Hollandsworth didn't take the bat off his shoulder once during the AB. Maybe that gives a little insight on his approach to the AB, and whether or not he was fooled by the pitch.

Gee, did you notice that Murton swung at 3 breaking balls like he had never seen one before?

 

He missed breaking ball calls on both Gosling and Hill today, I don't think he can pick up or properly call left handed breaking balls...

[jjgman21]

Not trying to start an argument but that pitch looked very good, and way to close to watch. I do think the pitch to Glaus was a strike too, so you can argue that he was inconsistant. But no way should Hollandsworth be watching that pitch in the 9th inning with 2 strikes

When you're hitting .206 in a month and your team is down by a run in the 9th, you need to take what the pitcher gives you. It was a slow pitch that missed the zone by about two inches and both the batter and the umpire had a clear look at it. Dowdy was just terribly inconsistent (and terrible) behind the plate for both teams today.

 

I agree, I do think the he was inconsistent today. But this looked like a really good pitch that Hollandsworth was not expecting to get on a 3-2 count. That said you cant watch a pitch anywhere near as close to that wiht 2 strikes. Especially if you know the ump has been inconsistent all day.

 

answer honestly...

 

is that called strike three on Jim Edmonds? for that matter, is that called strike three on John Mabry? for that matter, has that been called a strike on any Cardinal in your memory?

 

What is that supposed to mean? :head scratch:

 

By the way, for those who want to argue whether or not it was a strike......anyone noticed Hollandsworth didn't take the bat off his shoulder once during the AB. Maybe that gives a little insight on his approach to the AB, and whether or not he was fooled by the pitch.

 

why are you responding to a post not directed to you with an attitude like I just slapped your mom?

 

yes. I noticed that Hollandsworth didn't take the bat off his shoulder. he took a strike, just like he should have. took a high pitch that should have been called a ball for strike three, then took a pitch that 99.9% of the people who saw the game, except maybe you and the Cardinal fan you are standing in the shoes of, know was off the plate. if Len and Bob thought it crossed the plate, they wouldn't have said "maybe a stitch on the ball caught the outside corner."

 

but even so, I am not commenting on the Hollandsworth AB in and of itself. I am talking about the Cubs never getting a call that could go either way, and no matter how much conviction you have that strike three caught the plate, it certainly was a borderline strike at best, and of course went against the Cubs.

 

and FWIW, I just got done watching the Sandberg game. just as I remember, just as things are today, just as things have never changed...the Cubs had to overcome some terrible ball-strike calls to win that game.

[PackLandVA]

why are you responding to a post not directed to you with an attitude like I just slapped your mom?

 

Sorry...didn't know I was only allowed to respond to posts directed to me. I thought since you chimed in on a posts between two other posters, I was free to as well. My bad. :roll:

 

As far as attitude, if you read that in my post, that's your problem. I reread the posts that are quoted and didn't understand the connection between what "reggierules" and "jon" were discussing and you mentioning Cardinal players. Especially since the game being discussed didn't even involve the Cards. Didn't realize "What is that supposed to mean?" had attitude written all over it.

 

yes. I noticed that Hollandsworth didn't take the bat off his shoulder. he took a strike, just like he should have.

 

I agree, not doubting that.

 

took a high pitch that should have been called a ball for strike three, then took a pitch that 99.9% of the people who saw the game, except maybe you and the Cardinal fan you are standing in the shoes of, know was off the plate.

 

First of all, I did see the game. And my opinion is that it easily could've been called a strike. I watched the game from the bottom of the 6th inning on, so I can't comment on the ump's inconsistent strike zone. But that pitch wasn't three or four inches outside. That pitch was close enough to be a strike. And Holly kept the bat on his shoulder with two strikes.

 

And your Cardinal comment is comical. Because I disagree with you and "99.9% of the people who saw the game" that it was a ball, I must be a Cardinal fan? Please. Grow up. :roll: That's a stupid insinuation, it really is. I'm as much of a Cubs fan as anyone on this board.

 

if Len and Bob thought it crossed the plate, they wouldn't have said "maybe a stitch on the ball caught the outside corner."

 

They're entitled to their opinions. I thought I was too. Do you call them "Cardinal fans" when they disagree with you, too??

 

but even so, I am not commenting on the Hollandsworth AB in and of itself. I am talking about the Cubs never getting a call that could go either way, and no matter how much conviction you have that strike three caught the plate, it certainly was a borderline strike at best, and of course went against the Cubs.

 

And most baseball people will tell you that with two strikes, you've gotta protect the plate. And that means sometimes swinging at borderline pitches. And if the ump was as inconsistent as you and others say, Holly should've recognized this and altered his plate approach.

 

By the way, Holly has struck out in 7 of his last 8 ABs. That should tell people how well he's seeing the ball.

[HerbalK]

I just wanted to chime in and say that I agree completely with those saying that Holla needed to protect in that situation. The pitch was thisclose to catching the black, he needs to make a defensive swing and poke the ball out of play in that situation. Macias, even though he eventually struck out, had a defensive swing on a similar pitch and bought himself and the team another chance. Hollandsworth has been absolutely terrible lately, I just can't understand why he is being kept around to fail.

[jjgman21]

 

Sorry...didn't know I was only allowed to respond to posts directed to me. I thought since you chimed in on a posts between two other posters, I was free to as well. My bad. :roll:

 

As far as attitude, if you read that in my post, that's your problem. I reread the posts that are quoted and didn't understand the connection between what "reggierules" and "jon" were discussing and you mentioning Cardinal players. Especially since the game being discussed didn't even involve the Cards. Didn't realize "What is that supposed to mean?" had attitude written all over it..

 

if you read the thread as you claimed to have done, clearly my question to Reggie was a follow up to my post immediately preceeding in which I made a point about the boderline pitch never going the Cubs way. reply to any post you want, but expect similar reactions when you jump in to answer questions specifically directed to someone else. try to deflect all you want, but you clearly had attitude. I understand that you may not have known that Reggie was a Cardinal fan because he doesn't post often and is generally a respectful poster. but maybe, just maybe, if you don't understand the context of a post, you shouldn't reply.

 

First of all, I did see the game. And my opinion is that it easily could've been called a strike. I watched the game from the bottom of the 6th inning on, so I can't comment on the ump's inconsistent strike zone. But that pitch wasn't three or four inches outside. That pitch was close enough to be a strike. And Holly kept the bat on his shoulder with two strikes.

 

again, maybe you should know the entire context. the ball strike calls were terrible the entire game. the Glaus homerun is directly attributable to missed strike three calls. and again, my primary point is not about Hollandworth. yes, that pitch is close enough to be a strike. it was also far enough off the plate to be a ball, and had been called a ball throughout the course of the game.

 

And your Cardinal comment is comical. Because I disagree with you and "99.9% of the people who saw the game" that it was a ball, I must be a Cardinal fan? Please. Grow up. :roll: That's a stupid insinuation, it really is. I'm as much of a Cubs fan as anyone on this board.

 

you completely misconstrued what I said. I said you were standing in the shoes of a Cardinal fan when you jumped into answer the question directed at Reggie. I'll grow up and stop making stupid insinuations when you learn how to read. and please use the eyeroll a little more often. it makes for such pleasurable discourse and drives home your point so well.

 

 

They're entitled to their opinions. I thought I was too. Do you call them "Cardinal fans" when they disagree with you, too??

 

of course they are, and you and I are as well. but my point is that Len and Bob call a spade a spade. they generally are not homers and call it straight up. its not like the broadcasters on the otherside of town who call it one way, and they're not like the broadcasters last year who refused to acknowledge how badly Alou was getting hosed all year. they call em as they see em and my reference to their comment was meant to reinforce that the pitch was outside according to two objective observers.

 

but even so, I am not commenting on the Hollandsworth AB in and of itself. I am talking about the Cubs never getting a call that could go either way, and no matter how much conviction you have that strike three caught the plate, it certainly was a borderline strike at best, and of course went against the Cubs.

 

And most baseball people will tell you that with two strikes, you've gotta protect the plate. And that means sometimes swinging at borderline pitches. And if the ump was as inconsistent as you and others say, Holly should've recognized this and altered his plate approach.

 

By the way, Holly has struck out in 7 of his last 8 ABs. That should tell people how well he's seeing the ball.

 

you just don't get that I am not discussing one single at bat. there is plenty of discussion on this board about how bad the Cubs are at taking walks. plenty of baseball people will tell you that its nearly impossible to take a walk when the borderline strike never goes your way. not only do you not get the ball called, you then have to swing at that pitch the next time it comes.

 

I am in no way sticking up for Hollandworth. however, I do empathise with him for that particular AB. that AB is reminiscient of the Corey Patterson syndrome I witnessed earlier this year. a batter who is swinging wildly at balls who finally takes a couple balls in an AB, and they are called strikes anyway.

 

I have been watching Cubs baseball for about 30 years now, and see this same treatment from the umps year after year. I watched the replay of the Sandberg game last night, and without the emotion that comes from not knowing the outcome of the game, I saw several ridiculous strike calls that benefitted rookie John Cintranella. I saw should be Hall of Famer Bruce Sutter get two charity strikes that nearly ended the game and would have left Ryno in the on deck circle to end the game.

 

the only year I did not see it was 2001 when those calls actually seemed to even out. this is to me is not an argument about one single AB or one single game, it is an editorial about officiating in baseball. the debate happens in all sports. basketball with one sided foul calls on behalf of Duke and the Lakers, hockey with one sided penalty calls on behalf of the RedWings and Avalanche, and football with selective holding and pass interference calls (one which I am sure you vehemently deny since your team is so often the beneficiary).

 

its not an absurd notion, nor a claim of conspiracy. perhaps its an area for psychology, but the fact is the uniform is often the determining factor in sports officiating, and I am sick of my favorite team coming out on the short end of the stick, game after game, year after year.