CubinNY

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely? It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question. Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not. People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place. Baseball is not basketball. Your wild speculation on the disposition of umpires isn't very convincing. What is so wild about it? That umpires have integrity or that they are human?

So basketball refs have a vested interest but baseball umps don't? I have no doubt that Bonds gets a small zone. No it can't be proved, but Zambrano striking him out looking does not disprove that claim either. I don't think it is fair to compare baseball or basketball. I don't know why professional basketball is refereed the way it is. It's one of the reasons why I don't watch. To me it is illogical to think that Bonds has a smaller zone than the average ballplayer. This is a guy that almost no one likes but the umpires? And if last night is any indication, it is at least not always the case. And if it is not always the case, how often is it the case? Obviously, umpires are human they will make mistakes. But unless I am missing something here, people are suggesting that umpires intentionally call the game differently based on who is ptiching and who is batting. What happens if Bonds is batting against Glaven? I suppose by that logic the strike zone is called fairly?

You think that a manager's ire can effect the strikezone but not the reputation of the pitcher? Why is one ridiculous to believe while the other you readily accept as being likely? It is pretty simple. An umpire doesn't care who is pitching or batting. They have no vested interest in the outcome of the game. And I have to assume they are professionals and have integrity. If not then the entire integrity of the game is in question. Now, if in a game the manger keeps complaining it could have an emotional effect. Unintended or not. People like to say the umpires won't call strikes on Bonds. Well that certianly didn't happen last night. And Z was alll over the place. Baseball is not basketball.

One thing that is true that any ballplayer will say is that as long as the zone is consistent they are fine. If the umpire is calling a high strike zone then they want them to call that all game. It is when the strike zone is inconsistent that people complain.

To me it is just ridicilous to assume 1. An umprie changes his zone depneding on who is ptiching/batting 2. Late in a game an umpire will reward a guy who threw strikes early in the ball game. That is not to say that the strike zone cannot be inconsistent, or that umpires don't make mistakes, or they are not suspectible to human emotions if a manager is on them. But I'd venture to guess that if the umpire is griping it makes it less likely that a borderline strike will get called. But I guess it is just much easire to blame the umpires for robbing one team or another.

Glavine Link That proves nothing. Here is a whole bunch of untrue things said by a former ballpayer http://firejoemorgan.blogspot.com/

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty? You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?. But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation. Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is. That is simply not true. Just so I get your analysis down here. You are saying a pitcher who throws strikes will get strikes called? If a guy is wild, balls will be called if he throws strikes, strikes will be called. You or anyone else cannot tell if a ball is in the strike zone or not sitting in your home watching on TV. The angle of the camera is not centered. Everyone makes mistakes, but there is no reward system for being around the plate most of the time in the early going. That is pure mythology born of ex-ballplayer broadcasters. That's just the way it is. The Braves pitchers always got an extra inch or so off the plate. Some umpires are a little more liberal with a guy who is consistently painting the corners. I don't think this is true. Then you're wrong. prove it. Prove what you're saying is true, you're so adamant in your wrong stance. I can safely say from watching many games over the 90's that that call was given to all of the Braves pitchers. If you choose to be ignorant to what happened, then I can't help you. You cannot say anything sitting in your house watching a game on TV. The camera angle even when behind the pitcher is off ether to the left or to the right. Its a fools errand to try to call balls and strikes through that method. But more importantly, you are saying that the umpires and MLB conspired to cheat for the Braves over the better part of a decade. I guess they just wanted them to make it to the WS and not actually win it. Here are some other myths: the Yankees bought their pennants (most of the players where homegrown) The Braves get the benefit of the Doubt because well, they're the Braves

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty? You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?. But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation. Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is. That is simply not true. Just so I get your analysis down here. You are saying a pitcher who throws strikes will get strikes called? If a guy is wild, balls will be called if he throws strikes, strikes will be called. You or anyone else cannot tell if a ball is in the strike zone or not sitting in your home watching on TV. The angle of the camera is not centered. Everyone makes mistakes, but there is no reward system for being around the plate most of the time in the early going. That is pure mythology born of ex-ballplayer broadcasters. That's just the way it is. The Braves pitchers always got an extra inch or so off the plate. Some umpires are a little more liberal with a guy who is consistently painting the corners. I don't think this is true. Then you're wrong. prove it. At some point in our lives we all have to wake up a question if what we are told is true. Then again maybe it is only some people that do that.

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty? You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?. But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation. Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is. That is simply not true. Just so I get your analysis down here. You are saying a pitcher who throws strikes will get strikes called? If a guy is wild, balls will be called if he throws strikes, strikes will be called. You or anyone else cannot tell if a ball is in the strike zone or not sitting in your home watching on TV. The angle of the camera is not centered. Everyone makes mistakes, but there is no reward system for being around the plate most of the time in the early going. That is pure mythology born of ex-ballplayer broadcasters. That's just the way it is. The Braves pitchers always got an extra inch or so off the plate. Some umpires are a little more liberal with a guy who is consistently painting the corners. I don't think this is true.

Do you ever have it in you to disagree with someone without being so nasty? You mention umpires are human like everyone else and yet you are also suggesting they aren't succeptible to perception or reputation like all other people :?. But even if I accept the reputation-plays-no-factor element of your point just for argument's sake (which I don't), it still doesn't account for "in-game" perception of that performance, regardless of permanent perception or reputation. Strike zones get establsihed during the game. Pitchers that pound the strike zone get more strikes called throughout the game, including border calls. A pitcher that comes out in the 1st inning and throw 15 balls and 5 strikes often won't get those border calls throughout the rest of the game because they have already demonstarted wildness and lack of command. That's just the way it is. That is simply not true. Just so I get your analysis down here. You are saying a pitcher who throws strikes will get strikes called? If a guy is wild, balls will be called if he throws strikes, strikes will be called. You or anyone else cannot tell if a ball is in the strike zone or not sitting in your home watching on TV. The angle of the camera is not centered. Everyone makes mistakes, but there is no reward system for being around the plate most of the time in the early going. That is pure mythology born of ex-ballplayer broadcasters. That's just the way it is.

Those splits are complete out of control. I wonder if any other player has divergent splits like that?

1

That is neither cute or funny and completely wrong.

That's the only pitch of the game I saw, when it was replayed on Sports Center. That was a devastating pitch. Too bad half the time it won't be called a strike for Zambrano due to his wildness. If it was called on Bonds, who has the strikezone of a midget at the plate, then Z will consistently get it called. I don't think so. Strike zone is a big issue for Zambrano. In a perfect world, I think he has quite a few less walks given strike zone tightness. But when a pitcher is wild to the tune of 4-5 walks per game, umpires generally don't give that guy the close call as often as someone with good command. Fewer walks and border calls go hand in hand. Maddux benefitted for years on an extended zone, which was built on a reputation of minimal walks. It's not uncommon for fans to constantly complain about their teams' pitchers getting squeezed, particularly in a loss. Perhaps it's just my perception, but the complaints about getting squeezed occur more frequently with Zambrano than any other Cubs pitcher. Unconscious movement and a reputation for lack of command will inflate the perception even more. So honestly, I am surprised he got he call, and am generally surprised he gets any close calls right now. I think that is a load of garbage. The umpires don't care who is at the plate or on the mound. I think they do their best to call a consistent strike zone, but they are human. The questteck numbers they have been keeping for the past couple of years bear that out.

It's just, you know. You're just funny, it's... funny, the way you tell the story and everything.

To me it is not a big deal one way or the other. He might help the pathetic bench though. But the guy is 39. I predict he won't help much.

He chose to go to Tampa. And he wasn't any better in Seattle than Dusty was in San Fran (and both men won because of the ability to pencil in all time greats every day - and neither reached the promised land despite all that talent). Everybody likes to talk about how smart it is to change the makeup of the team by changing the personality of the manager, but what proof do you have that it works? Philly was a moderately talented team that struggled under Francona, who was considered a soft excuse making players managers. So they brought in Bowa and still struggled. A lot of people just assume that ranting and raving and intensity will equal great success, I disagree. Larry Bowa brought alot of fire but not much people skill. He was why over the top. Lou Piniella isn't a raving loon. Nither is Davie Johnson. But do you think for one minute that Sammy Sosa would have considered leaving early if either those guy's were managing? I think we all know the answer. Dusty must go and be replaced by someone that holds his players accountable!! If you don't think Sammy was held accountable for his actions then I really don't know what to say.

How has it been proven? In the standings. What standings? When?

That's part of the reason they brought in Dusty after Don Baylor (& Bruce Kimm). They figured Dusty wouldn't have arguements with players via the media. Well, that's not the kind of reason I was talking about. In all sports, the philosophy of following coddling managers with disciplinarians has been proven to be a successful one. Data please. The Cubs don't need a disciplinarian, they need a guy who can fillout a lineup card, manage a pitching staff, and properly handle a 25 man roster.

Ron give the player of the game award to JJ. Well deserved. And he predicts two in a row.

Z seems to be back on track. he has to get the walks lowered though.

What amazes me is how many times this has to be shown to be true. And people still talk about manufacturing runs. If that is your manufacturing process you won't long stay in business.

Who is this Riot of which you mention. I know they have a Ryan Theriot to carry toothpicks and give rub downs.

I really hope not. I cannot see the game to judge his body language. If his mechanics are still good and he is not overthrowning I might leave him in. Z is strong like horse.

How many Cub fans use to leave after Sammy's last AB? It's just the way people behave.