K-Town

It would have saved the umps a lot of grief. competence also could have saved the umps a lot of grief. True. He made a mistake and it came back to bite him big time. How so?

Like I said, you're simply trying to divert from the real issue. That's fine. Nobody's buying it.

If Eddings watched Paul then why din't he call AJ out because it was obvious that Paul thought he caught the ball. He DID call AJ out. :roll:

No....... if you recall, I said that 99% of the time, the fielder can assume the out. The example that you're talking about happens probably less than 1% of the time. Furthermore, it didn't happen last night. You came up with the 99% not me. Do you have the actual numbers to back that up or are you assuming? I don't have actual numbers, and don't need them, because your point is irrelevant. The fact that Paul rolled the ball to the mound is your way of trying to divert from the real issue. The real issue is this: The batter was out. The umpire CALLED the batter out. The batter was allowed to stay on first base base, despite being called out. If you want to fault Paul for that, then you're simply missing the point.

No....... if you recall, I said that 99% of the time, the fielder can assume the out. The example that you're talking about happens probably less than 1% of the time. Furthermore, it didn't happen last night.

Which they can do. Really? How so? Do you have any examples?

The right hand going up indicates there was no contact between the bat and the ball. In other words, it's not a foul. A foul ball had nothing to do with it though and since you can run on a ball in the dirt after a 3rd strike that to me is where the probelm is. Again, why did Paul roll the ball before AJ was called out? Because he knew it was an out. He assumed wrong then didn't he? No, he didn't assume wrong. It was an out. The umpire called the out. What more do you want? If he called him out why was AJ safe at first? Simple. Eddings reversed his own "out" call. Does it sound absolutely ludicrous that an umpire would reverse his own call without consulting any of the other umps? Good. Because that is why this is causing such an uproar. I saw him talking with another ump after the play. Eddings said after the game that he (not another umpire) deemed the runner to be safe. Then, the replay showed that he (Eddings) clearly called the runner out. Eddings blew it, and then lied about it. That's not Paul's fault.

The right hand going up indicates there was no contact between the bat and the ball. In other words, it's not a foul. A foul ball had nothing to do with it though and since you can run on a ball in the dirt after a 3rd strike that to me is where the probelm is. Again, why did Paul roll the ball before AJ was called out? Because he knew it was an out. He assumed wrong then didn't he? No, he didn't assume wrong. It was an out. The umpire called the out. What more do you want? If he called him out why was AJ safe at first? Because the umpire changed his call.

The right hand going up indicates there was no contact between the bat and the ball. In other words, it's not a foul. A foul ball had nothing to do with it though and since you can run on a ball in the dirt after a 3rd strike that to me is where the probelm is. Again, why did Paul roll the ball before AJ was called out? Because he knew it was an out. He assumed wrong then didn't he? No, he didn't assume wrong. It was an out. The umpire called the out. What more do you want?

It doesn't matter. If that outfielder thinks he caught the ball, and the umpire calls the batter "out", but the batter continues to run to first base, should the batter be safe? Of course not. Out is out. But...he has to see or hear him call him out before he does anything with the ball. Paul rolled the ball to the mound before the out was called. No, he doesn't have to see or hear ANYTHING before he does anything with the ball. If the fielder is certain that he caught the ball, then he probably won't even look at the umpire. You are kidding right? You can not assume things like that. Sure you can. It happens 99% of the time. Fielders rarely look at the umpire for the call, because they know what the call will be. I don't know about 99% of the time but they should always make sure. It's a game with humans and they make mistakes and it's the jobs of the players to do what they can to avoid it being a multiple mistake. No, it's the players' job to play the game by the rules, to the best of their ability. It's the umpire's job to apply the rules. The rules weren't applied. It wasn't a "mistake" by the umpire. He got the call right, and then changed his call, which is unheard of. It was a blatant violation of the rules by an umpire........... you can't put that on the players, no matter how you twist it.

The right hand going up indicates there was no contact between the bat and the ball. In other words, it's not a foul. A foul ball had nothing to do with it though and since you can run on a ball in the dirt after a 3rd strike that to me is where the probelm is. Again, why did Paul roll the ball before AJ was called out? Because he knew it was an out.

It doesn't matter. If that outfielder thinks he caught the ball, and the umpire calls the batter "out", but the batter continues to run to first base, should the batter be safe? Of course not. Out is out. But...he has to see or hear him call him out before he does anything with the ball. Paul rolled the ball to the mound before the out was called. No, he doesn't have to see or hear ANYTHING before he does anything with the ball. If the fielder is certain that he caught the ball, then he probably won't even look at the umpire. You are kidding right? You can not assume things like that. Sure you can. It happens 99% of the time. Fielders rarely look at the umpire for the call, because they know what the call will be.

It doesn't matter. If that outfielder thinks he caught the ball, and the umpire calls the batter "out", but the batter continues to run to first base, should the batter be safe? Of course not. Out is out. But...he has to see or hear him call him out before he does anything with the ball. Paul rolled the ball to the mound before the out was called. No, he doesn't have to see or hear ANYTHING before he does anything with the ball. If the fielder is certain that he caught the ball, then he probably won't even look at the umpire.

This was discussed earlier. In the previous at-bat, Rowand struck out on a ball in the dirt. The umpire didn't raise his hand to make the "out" call until Rowand was tagged. There were a couple of other examples, also. It was clearly an "out" call.

It doesn't matter. If that outfielder thinks he caught the ball, and the umpire calls the batter "out", but the batter continues to run to first base, should the batter be safe? Of course not. Out is out.

I don't think there was any doubt in the minds of the Angels players. I agree but there was a longer delay after this strike 3 call. I do believe the umps blew this one but you have to be aware of the possibility. So you think that every catcher should tag every batter, after every strike 3? That's a little unreasonable. Yeah...that's sounds logical. :D Seriously, you can not assume and Paul did. The replays that we see are in slow motion and it's still pretty tough to tell if the ball even hit the ground. I don't think it did personally but it was pretty dang close. On balls that close to the dirt I have my catchers tag the batter IMMEDIATELY. Paul threw the ball back before the ump even signaled with his fist up. It's difficult for US to see, but I think that a catcher knows whether the ball hit the dirt, just by the way that the ball hits the glove. Paul clearly knew that he had caught it cleanly.

His gestures were the same but this one had a longer delay. Tell me this...why did AJ figure it out? AJ didn't figure it out. He made it up, and duked the umpire into believing it.

I don't think there was any doubt in the minds of the Angels players. I agree but there was a longer delay after this strike 3 call. I do believe the umps blew this one but you have to be aware of the possibility. So you think that every catcher should tag every batter, after every strike 3? That's a little unreasonable.

I don't think there was any doubt in the minds of the Angels players.

It's just that we (or I) keep hearing the same crap every postseason. The "best fans in baseball" should've realized that a STL/San Diego series wouldn't be a draw on a national basis, just like a STL/Arizona wasn't. Records have nothing to do with it. Then it's the old, "I can't believe SportsCenter only spent one-minute on the Cardinals clinching the division. Well, make the division race interesting and quit winning it in July and then you might get more of a story. So that you won't be shocked. If it ends up a Cardinal/White Sox World Series, be prepared to have the story center around whether the White Sox will break the long drought. That will be the story. If the Cardinals win, it won't be about the Cardinals winning. It will be about the White Sox still waiting for a championship. If the White Sox win, it will be about Chicago having a World Series Champion for the first time since 1917 or 1918, I forget. Just predicting what will happen to lessen the blow a bit. I think you're right. Cardinal fans are well aware of all of that, and understand it. That doesn't mean that we have to like it, or pretend to like it.

What do you suppose the fans would have said? Something like "I'd rather the games didn't start so late".? You can't blame fans for wanting the games to start earlier. I realize that it's all about marketing, but the Cards busted their tail to have the best record in baseball, and it would be nice if they could have been rewarded with at least one prime-time game, but that wasn't the case for the Division Series. Cardinal fans were disappointed. If that makes them a bunch of whiners, then so be it, I guess. I assume that this is the Selig remark that you're talking about, and I think it's relevant: Selig indicated he had no choice because of television commitments, but Bond said baseball could have done better - and in fact had promised three years ago in a similar situation to do so. In the 2002 postseason, when the Cards had a similar start against the Arizona Diamondbacks, Selig said he was sorry at the time and that, "I told our people, no more 10 p.m. starts. That's the end of it." Basically, Selig made a promise in 2002 that he couldn't keep, and didn't keep.

They had a legitimate complaint in only that a lot of STL sports fans think the world is out to get them. It was on a Saturday night for pete's sake. It wasn't a Tuesday or Wednesday night 10 pm start. Were some Cardinal fans complaining that the Padres had a 10 am PT start for game one? Were they complaining that the Angels/Yankees ALDS (game 2) had a 10 pm ET start? I've lived here for 10 years and don't understand why STL fans can't understand that STL is not a large television market and that's what dictates who plays at what times --- not best records. STL, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, KC, Milwaukee are like cities when you talk about television markets. And all of them would get the worst time slot if you had a NY team, LA team or a Chicago team (especially the Cubs) playing. I think that most Cardinal fans understand that. I heard very little complaining, actually. Here's an article that addresses that: Media Views: Cards fans show they'll put up with late games By Dan Caesar ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH 10/11/2005 New York isn't the only city that never sleeps. Put St. Louis in that category, at least when major sporting events involving the local teams are taking place after the clock strikes midnight. Late Night With The Cardinals, their 7-4 victory over San Diego that ended in the wee hours Sunday (St. Louis time), generated the biggest Redbirds TV rating of the season. The game, in which the Cards won their first-round series, was simulcast on KPLR (Channel 11) and cable's ESPN, and Nielsen Media Research says the telecasts were seen in 26.5 percent of homes with a TV in the market. That surpasses the previous Cards high, a 24.1 rating, for Game 2 of the series. The game began shortly after 10 p.m. Saturday and drew a 15 rating on KPLR and an 11.2 figure on ESPN. Another impressive figure from Nielsen: 48 percent of TV sets that were on while the game was being played were tuned to the contest. "Nothing should surprise me about Cardinal fans watching Cardinal baseball anymore, but yeah, I was pleasantly surprised that that many people were up," KPLR general manager Bill Lanesey said.Advertisement From 1:15-1:30 a.m., when the contest ended and postgame coverage aired, the rating was 20. And the rating for the final hour of game coverage was 23.3. But the late-night crowd has tuned in in droves for key St. Louis sporting events in recent years. To wit: In 2002 the Cardinals' playoff opener, in Phoenix, didn't begin until after 10 p.m. (St. Louis time) on a weeknight. But it generated a higher rating (18.8) than any Cards game to that point of the season despite not ending until nearly 1 a.m. The Blues beat Phoenix in Game 7 of a playoff series in 1999, a contest that didn't end until about 1:15 a.m. in St. Louis. But it drew the best hockey rating of that season to that point - 13.2. And in 2003, the Blues' season ended with a 4-1 loss to Vancouver in a playoff game that didn't end until after midnight. But it pulled the top local hockey rating (8.2) of that season.

I don't think it's more unreasonable than Jeter's salary, and he's had his down postseasons. His overall salary is ridiculous, but the amount his team actually pays isn't that bad, relatively speaking (less than Giambi, Mussina and Jeter). Considering his salary, I would expect Jeter to be consistently productive, also.

Damon has only done that 4 times, and he'll be 32 years old next month, so it's not like he's a perennial .800 OPS guy.

Yeah, his avg was bad this year. And so was the Big Unit's ERA. Some guys have huge series, some guys have bad series. It happens. From year to year that changes. And over time it tends to even out, which to me is why it's silly to say things like choke/clutch. A guy making $25 mil isn't allowed a "bad year", even if it's just a few post-season games, in my opinion. When you're making that kind of money, and your team is fortunate enough to make the playoffs, you'd better be a "money player". Okay then. Unreasonable expectations are cool. The more people badmouthing ARod the better, hopefully he gets traded and hopefully he comes to the Cubs. I'll take my chances on that "bad year" every time. As far as I'm concerned, his salary is unreasonable, so the expectations should be unreasonable, also.