George Hayduke

:yahoo:

Our guys are too clean shaven. We need him. they're not clean shaven, they just can't grow beards Hahaha!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-5fw8fUoKmR8/UqVoScAcfFI/AAAAAAAAAKY/chW58d5X4yk/s1600/HATERSgonnaHATE.gif

That swing by Baez was....not good.

The Oakland A's are now 2-13 in their last 15 games. They're basically in a dead heat now with the Mariners and Royals for the wild cards. Their first order win % has them outperforming the Royals by almost 15 wins. Poor Billy B.

Seven in a row. Longest losing streak since 2012. #-o

IMO Johnson didn't really offer at the pitch, which is a big part of the reason why they were so pissed at the umps. Same with Stanton. I mean, TECHNICALLY his bat did break the plane of the plate in a forward motion, but only because he was tying to turn his body outside to get out of the way, he wasn't actually offering at the pitch. Obviously with both guys you can make the argument that they were swings at it, but to me it's not like he was taking a legitimate cut at the ball that hit him in the face. Same with Johnson. That was Redmond's argument: "Fiers' fastballs keep sailing at our guys faces and you're calling strikes when they turn their bodies (and hence the bat) to try to get out of the way. That's BS." I do think Fiers was acting like a dick after beaning two guys in a row, even though it wasn't intentional. And the pitch to Johnson was at his shoulders, so I think that's close enough to say "almost at the face". I can see the argument that Johnson didn't swing(the fact that it's even arguable mitigates how furious you should reasonably be about the pitch, IMO), but Stanton absolutely swung. It sucks for them, but in both cases if you feel they offered it has to be a strike. In either case though, there's a reason you don't see that happen all the time, and it's because the natural reaction to a fastball that's moving up and in is not to pull your left shoulder and expose your face/chest. I think there's a reasonable argument that Stanton had committed to the pitch, but I tend to think it was more like, his momentum had started forward with his stride, so when he realized it was coming at him, he couldn't make any real effort to stop the bat but rather was focused on trying to turn out the way. So to me it's kind of like, was that a swing AT THE PITCH (ie, he offered at it) or was it just incidental to his body movement to get out the way? Judgement call I guess. Same with Johnson, to a lesser degree though, I really don't think he offered at all. I guess if your body's momentum is going forward, your natural reaction would be to move in whater the fastest out of the way direction would be, which in that case would seem to be head down, body continuing outward. With no forward momentum, you'd probably turn inward with your back towards the pitch, which is what you see most often.

Side question related to the Stanton/Johnson situation: Stanton got charged with the strikeout for that at bat. In those types of situations, would the player who begins the at bat always be charged with the result (even if Johnson had taken over on say an 0-1 count) or is there some discretion by the scorekeeper? What if Johnson had gotten a hit, would that have been credited to Stanton as well? Edit: Nevermind, found the answer. The batter who gets the hit or out is charged with it UNLESS it is a strikeout and there are already two strikes when the batter takes over (as in the Stanton/Johnson case). Interesting.

IMO Johnson didn't really offer at the pitch, which is a big part of the reason why they were so pissed at the umps. Same with Stanton. I mean, TECHNICALLY his bat did break the plane of the plate in a forward motion, but only because he was tying to turn his body outside to get out of the way, he wasn't actually offering at the pitch. Obviously with both guys you can make the argument that they were swings at it, but to me it's not like he was taking a legitimate cut at the ball that hit him in the face. Same with Johnson. That was Redmond's argument: "Fiers' fastballs keep sailing at our guys faces and you're calling strikes when they turn their bodies (and hence the bat) to try to get out of the way. That's BS." I do think Fiers was acting like a dick after beaning two guys in a row, even though it wasn't intentional. And the pitch to Johnson was at his shoulders, so I think that's close enough to say "almost at the face".

This South Carolinian for one would love it if they moved to Myrtle Beach. Cub baseball 1.5 hours from me? :good:

the hell? why? Why? Because if I were a Marlin, Stanton would presumably be my friend. And seeing Reed almost catch one in the face right afterward would've thrown me into a blind rage. And seeing Fiers mouth off would have made it worse. Not saying it wouldn't have been ultra-meatbally, just saying that's likely how I would have felt. Sorry I'm not as zen as you under all circumstances, Roshi. Perhaps one day I will walk the 8-fold path like you. i'm sorry but unless you think there was intent, it makes no sense to me. i'm not even trying to be that guy. i'm not that guy. i get meatbally about stuff. hell i can turn into a raving lunatic if i'm running late and the people around me are driving too slow. a terrible accident like this isn't one of those times though. i mean, everyone is standing around looking horrified. You realize Reed Johnson basically got drilled on the next pitch, right? That's when fictional Marlin-me would've gotten angry. If you can't fathom getting pissed at the point, you might want to ask the Wizard for a heart. Yeah, I mean I'm a pretty reasonable guy, but if my team's best hitter took a fastball to the face, then the very next pitch is also a fastball thrown up near the next guy's face, then that pitcher starts mouthing off to the bench like he can't at all figure out why the other team is irate, then the ump simply issues a warning and ends the inning on a questionable swinging strike call...yeah, I might go full meatball and shove an ump and throw a chair. Not saying I'd be right in doing so...but it might happen.

Same for Illinois. +1 for South Carolina.

how are we to know? Didn't know if he had shown a similar pattern in one of his previous minor league adjustment periods.

To start next year, should we expect some degree of regression in his adjustment period owing to the offseason break, or is he likely to just pick up wherever he leaves off this year, whether that means figures things out this year and picking back up in April "figured out" or picking up at whatever stage of development in which he finishes 2014?

Well said. It's crazy that the National Park Service is even involved. But if you're the Cubs and you're going to have to work around the landmark status, you might as well take advantage of it if you can. It would have been one thing if the Cubs had asked for landmark status just so they could take advantage of the tax credit. But that was done long before Ricketts bought the Cubs. The landmark status with the NPS is separate though from the city landmark status. They are definitely seeking it out for the tax credit. They can do the project without NPS involvement. The question is if the renovations are dependent on the tax credit from a cost perspective. I hope not. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Right, but they have to adhere to the Landmark Commission's guidelines, and doing so probably gets them 95% or better of the way there with meeting the NPS guidelines for the tax credit. So it's kind of a pain in the ass, but if tweaking a few of the plans a little beyond what you've already done for the Landmark Commission nets you $75M in tax credits, then that's nothing to snub your nose at, especially if you need the cost savings immediately. Otherwise as David pointed out, if you expect the value of the extra signage to be well beyond the $75M, then you don't worry about it.

Relieved that nothing is torn or broken though. Could have been much worse.

Long live the dongs.

Were those boos I heard coming from TBFIB? For shame.

I'm that weirdo in a pindrop quiet office who just laughed out loud at this post.

Something something only my teams. South Carolina's defensive line looks way worse than I expected. And A&M looks pretty good too, better than I think most expected. If SC can't figure something out defensively very soon I won't be surprised to see them end up 8-4.

now that soler doesn't have anybody to look up to, does his debut even matter? Everyone on the team looks up to Soler now. That's so weird, what with his smaller salary he shouldn't have to shoulder such responsibility.

Mt Pleasant? I went to culinary school in Charleston. What a great town. You guys will have no problem with aTm. Yeah, I grew up in the Columbia area and went to school there, but moved to the Charleston area after college. We love it here. If we can't handle A&M at home with ease, it's going to be a long season.

My alma mater kicks off the season tonight against A&M...go Gamecocks!

Everyone offering at the bounced balls tonight it seems.

Should be out on review.