CuseCubFan69
-
Posts
18,845 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Joomla Posts 1
Chicago Cubs Videos
Chicago Cubs Free Agent & Trade Rumors, Notes, & Tidbits
2026 Chicago Cubs Top Prospects Ranking
News
2023 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
Guides & Resources
2024 Chicago Cubs Draft Picks
The Chicago Cubs Players Project
2025 Chicago Cubs Draft Pick Tracker
Blogs
Events
Forums
Store
Gallery
Everything posted by CuseCubFan69
-
IMO it was too close for Paul to take that chance to not tag or throw a slow runner out. Yes the umps screwed up and Katway is right....the Sox took advantage.
-
By what, 2 inches? The ball was not thrown before the signal. Pauls back was facing the ump. How in Gods green earth did he even see the pump? http://a.abcnews.com/images/Sports/CXS20710130327.jpeg Here is a picture of Paul walking away. Just because he's walking away doesn't mean his head isn't turned to what's going on. The ump is behind him....he can not see him. #2 the ump is NOT giving the out sign, he's giving the ball was not fouled sign. It's right there how can you not see that?
-
By what, 2 inches? The ball was not thrown before the signal. Pauls back was facing the ump. How in Gods green earth did he even see the pump?
-
How can you have such an opinion when he had nothing to sell. It was clearly a strike. Why would a catcher try to sell the fact that he caught the ball when all he'd have to do if he didn't catch the ball, or thought it was close enough to justify "selling" something, is tag the runner. There was nothing to sell. It was already called. A catchers job is to sell he caught the ball and it didn't hit the dirt. You can not tell me it wasn't close and thus Paul acting like it was a no doubt strike took off. IMO, it's Pauls job to tag the runner just to make sure there is no doubt about it. Paul also rolled the ball INFRONT of AJP so how could the ump give him the out sign before he rolled the ball? Watch it again because Paul rolled the ball BEFORE the out signal. No, he didn't. You're about the only person here who thinks so, and probably the only non Southsider who thinks so. You can actually tell me that Paul looked at the ump and saw the pump and then rolled the ball? Wow you are very wrong.
-
How can you have such an opinion when he had nothing to sell. It was clearly a strike. Why would a catcher try to sell the fact that he caught the ball when all he'd have to do if he didn't catch the ball, or thought it was close enough to justify "selling" something, is tag the runner. There was nothing to sell. It was already called. A catchers job is to sell he caught the ball and it didn't hit the dirt. You can not tell me it wasn't close and thus Paul acting like it was a no doubt strike took off. IMO, it's Pauls job to tag the runner just to make sure there is no doubt about it. Paul also rolled the ball INFRONT of AJP so how could the ump give him the out sign before he rolled the ball? Watch it again because Paul rolled the ball BEFORE the out signal.
-
I went home for lunch and watched ESPNEWS and they discussed it. They said that essentially the umpire balked on the call and he deceived the players for the Angels. So they assumed it was an out when it wasn't. I don't deny that the ump screwed up but the Angels are not without fault in this. I don't like this line of thinking. It works to excuse the initial mistake that caused all the trouble. The Angels "mistake" was only a "mistake" because the ump screwed up. That's like saying a driver is at fault when an oncoming car is heading straight at them, and he swerves to avoid the head on collision, then ticketing that driver for changing lanes without signaling. The Angels did nothing wrong. They just failed to make up for the ump's huge blunder. I am not excusing the initial mistake by the ump. Watch the replay and tell me if Paul isn't sprintiing for the clubhouse and already rolls the ball before the ump pumps his hand. He rolled the ball right after the ump pumped his hand. But, Paul never looked at the ump. We saw two different games because Paul took off right after he caught the ball. AJP took a couple of steps towards his bench..looked at the ump and didn't see the out sign and ran. Only then did the ump pump his hand once AJP already took off.
-
I went home for lunch and watched ESPNEWS and they discussed it. They said that essentially the umpire balked on the call and he deceived the players for the Angels. So they assumed it was an out when it wasn't. I don't deny that the ump screwed up but the Angels are not without fault in this. Assumed? I guess I was wrong for assuming he was out when the umpire punched him out. They also laughed at how the umpire for extra emphasis gave a kick with the fist pump. The Angels are without fault on this play because the umpire gave the signal that he was out. I watched the replay and Paul was in a dead sprint for the bench before the fist pump. IMO he was trying to sell the strike as much as AJP was selling the bounce. Also, Pauls back is to the ump...how the heck does he know what was called?
-
I went home for lunch and watched ESPNEWS and they discussed it. They said that essentially the umpire balked on the call and he deceived the players for the Angels. So they assumed it was an out when it wasn't. I don't deny that the ump screwed up but the Angels are not without fault in this. I don't like this line of thinking. It works to excuse the initial mistake that caused all the trouble. The Angels "mistake" was only a "mistake" because the ump screwed up. That's like saying a driver is at fault when an oncoming car is heading straight at them, and he swerves to avoid the head on collision, then ticketing that driver for changing lanes without signaling. The Angels did nothing wrong. They just failed to make up for the ump's huge blunder. I am not excusing the initial mistake by the ump. Watch the replay and tell me if Paul isn't sprintiing for the clubhouse and already rolls the ball before the ump pumps his hand.
-
I don't know for sure that all those guys thought it but the one that mattered didn't. The ump that called him out thought he called him out. It wasn't until after AJ ran that he thought maybe he didn't call him out. I do not think that means what you think it does. That's where the other umps should be able to help him. Take time to discuss it and get it right.
-
I went home for lunch and watched ESPNEWS and they discussed it. They said that essentially the umpire balked on the call and he deceived the players for the Angels. So they assumed it was an out when it wasn't. I don't deny that the ump screwed up but the Angels are not without fault in this.
-
I don't know for sure that all those guys thought it but the one that mattered didn't. http://www.mlb.com Paul caught the ball and booked for the dugout no doubt in my mind. IMO, he tried to do the same thing everyone is accusing AJP of.
-
I don't know for sure that all those guys thought it but the one that mattered didn't.
-
Dempsters career K/9 is 7.40 Hawkins career K/9 is 6.06 Dempster's career G/F is 1.26 Hawkins career G/F is 1.16 Dempster's career BB/9 is 4.72. Hawkins' career BB/9 is 2.72. You don't have to make a comparison to Hawkins to describe Dempster as somebody who walks the tight rope. The guy walks too many people, and that didn't change when he went to the bullpen. I was probably the biggest advocate of Dempster becoming the closer last offseason. I started the Dempster/Isringhausen comparison, and I think it still holds up. But there is nothing wrong with being concerned about his ability to close successfully 4 straight years. I think the Cubs still need to look into acquiring a more dominant bullpen arm, whether that guy is a closer like Wagner or Ryan, or a middle innings guy. Let's see what Dempster has to offer now that he knows he is going to be a closer. He was getting ready to be a starter throughout the spring and the first third of the season so maybe this will help him in his development in throwing strikes. It may not but maybe it will help.
-
I teach my players to go after the ball and not yell at an ump. Once AJP is on first then we'll deal with the ump. I hope this gets some rules straighted out and doesn't make then more complicated.
-
Can you prove this to be right? Also, how do you know when he's rattled he doesn't change his mechanics a little bit to flatten out his pitches? To hit a gland slam of of him 3 other guys had to have gotten on, how did they get there?
-
Think about it. A catcher drops a low called strike 3 and the batter doesn't swing. How are the players to know it was strike 3? Is it the right hand straight out or does an ump yell strike 3 but doesn't pump the batter out? If the plate ump simply yelled "live runner" it would be clear what happened. It definately would help the catcher since he can't see him. The plate ump should definitely be required to use verbal signals for the catcher's benefit. The other umps can use visual signs. True. And...it's up to the other players to be aware to help the catcher with this. Given that all the players were running off the field, and indicated Eddings' fist pump when AJP started running, all the players were aware of what was going on. I saw Erstad standing at first when AJP got there.
-
I'll take a player that can take advantage of a situation like that. It's the umps job to be in charge and make the right call.
-
I'm not so sure. Sports, pretty much at all levels, shy from requiring verbal calls because of numerous factors, including dialects, crowd noise, equipment, etc. The body gestures are supposed to have far fewer external factors. Give him a whistle then. :D
-
Same as scenario 2. Note that this is specific to Eddings style of calling in this game. These aren't universal umpiring guidelines. Did a catcher drop a 3rd strike in the game? I understand if a ball is in the dirt but I didn't realize that a catcher dropped a 3rd strike in the game. Sorry if I confused you. My note was actually in reference to the previous post that detailed Eddings call style. My assertion that a droped ball is treated the same as a ball-in-the-dirt comes from MLB rules. They're treated the same. I would assume you're right and that the ump also yells strike 3. It's just that it's an automatic reaction to use the punch out and thus the vocal part really comes into play.
-
Think about it. A catcher drops a low called strike 3 and the batter doesn't swing. How are the players to know it was strike 3? Is it the right hand straight out or does an ump yell strike 3 but doesn't pump the batter out? If the plate ump simply yelled "live runner" it would be clear what happened. It definately would help the catcher since he can't see him. The plate ump should definitely be required to use verbal signals for the catcher's benefit. The other umps can use visual signs. True. And...it's up to the other players to be aware to help the catcher with this.
-
I agree. Why take the chance? It reminds me of when that toad Mo Vaughn played first for the Mets. The pitcher made an easy throw over to check the runner at first. Mo caught the ball and just tossed it back to the pitcher. If he actually looked at the runner he would have seen that that he slipped and could have easily been tagged out.
-
Same as scenario 2. Note that this is specific to Eddings style of calling in this game. These aren't universal umpiring guidelines. Did a catcher drop a 3rd strike in the game? I understand if a ball is in the dirt but I didn't realize that a catcher dropped a 3rd strike in the game.
-
Think about it. A catcher drops a low called strike 3 and the batter doesn't swing. How are the players to know it was strike 3? Is it the right hand straight out or does an ump yell strike 3 but doesn't pump the batter out? If the plate ump simply yelled "live runner" it would be clear what happened. It definately would help the catcher since he can't see him.
-
I answered this for you over ten pages ago. Eddings established two precedents for his calls: -Swinging strike three: signal no contact with right arm raise, signal strike three with fist pump. -Ball-in-the-dirt swinging strike three; signal no contact with right arm raise, wait until catcher tags runner or throws to first to issue strike three fist pump. The entire issue with the call lies with the fact Eddings signaled example 1 to resolve the controversial play in question, which should have been signaled with example 2. What about a called 3 strike dropped by a catcher?
-
Think about it. A catcher drops a low called strike 3 and the batter doesn't swing. How are the players to know it was strike 3? Is it the right hand straight out or does an ump yell strike 3 but doesn't pump the batter out?