The Good Phight: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Around SBN: Baby Boilers no more: Michigan State-Purdue Preview

2009 World Series Game Three Recap -- Yankees 8, Phillies 5

The Phils lose their first post-season game to a lefty over the past two years and go down 2-1 to the Yankees.  Three story lines to tonight:

1) Tonight was Cole Hamels' season in a nutshell.  He pitched great for three innings yet couldn't get out of the fifth thanks to a combination of bad luck and not being able to put hitters away on two strike counts.  Alex Rodriguez's home run, which followed a Mark Texeira walk in which he came back from a 1-2 count (with help from the home plate ump), was the shortest a home run could be at CBP (and needed the aid of instant replay).  Nick Swisher's double was just fair.  Andy Pettitte's RBI single was a true bloop.  Derek Jeter's single could have been caught by Shane Victorino.  Only Johnny Damon's double was hit hard.  Yet Cole gives up 5 earned in 4.3 innings.

2) The Phillies' offensive lefties were no-shows tonight.  On the other hand (literally), the righties were dominant.  If the lefties could have put anything on the board tonight, the game would have been much closer.

3) Charlie Manuel's managing when the game was still tight was awful.  Pinch-hitting Eric Bruntlett in the sixth with a man on first, down by only 2, and Pettitte over 100 pitches was inexcusable.  Ben Francisco was the obvious choice.  If not him, any right-handed hitter in the stands would be better than Bruntlett.  Then, in the top of the seventh, with Chad Durbin struggling, Manuel had no one warming in the bullpen and was forced to let Durbin close out the inning.  Of course, Durbin gave up a run putting the game that much further out of reach.  The Bruntlett pinch hit appearance and Durbin full inning were turning points.

Yet, as bad as tonight felt, we're only down 1 game.  Joe Blanton faces CC Sabathia Sunday night to even the series.  Let's go Phils!

0 recs  |  Comment 69 comments |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Display:

Is it Sabathia vs Blanton tomorrow?
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Nov 1, 2009 12:49 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

how's this

the outcome effing sucked donkey kong

by SmilingJPhilsPhan on Nov 1, 2009 12:57 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

The outcome means that the Phillies are down two games to one.

.
.
.
:::blinks, jerks upright::: I think I was just channeling McCarver. Ick.

That ball hit deep! Way back! You can put it on the boooaaaard...YES!

Long drive into deep right center field! This ball is OUTTA HEEERRRREE!
R.I.P. Harry Kalas 4-13-09

by HappyHuman on Nov 1, 2009 1:06 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

a small silver lining if I may

You know what happened the last time the yanks went to the Series in ’03? Marlins took game 1 in Yankee stadium, Yankees take game 2 and 3 (3 in FL of course).

All I’m saying is that there is an odd coincidence. But at least it’s gives more hope, right.

And maybe I’m being slightly optimistic. But you still gotta believe. If the Marlins could do it, the phillies sure could too.

by alcatraz0109 on Nov 1, 2009 1:11 AM EDT via mobile reply actions   0 recs

True. The Yankees have won NOTHING yet. The Phillies are a great team, and the reigning champions. It’s 2-1, on to Game 4.

And I’m a Yankee fan … but I like the way the Phillies play baseball.

by d_c_guy on Nov 1, 2009 1:24 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

From our official ground rules:
Ball strikes top of outfield fence or scoreboard and rebounds onto the playing field: In Play.

So how was that double call overturned? Was it because A-Rod whined really hard? Because I didn’t see any video that suggested that ball would definitely have gone over the fence if that camera wasn’t there.

Maybe a better question – why is the camera in the field of play?

by Steve J on Nov 1, 2009 1:13 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

also

Any cameras or microphones permanently attached on railings are treated as part of the railings and are in play.

by Steve J on Nov 1, 2009 1:17 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Heard the last part of Manuel’s press conference. He said the umpires told him they decided, before the game, balls off the camera would be a home run, even though they knew the camera was hanging over the fence. And they didn’t bother to tell anyone! So basically, the umpires made up a ground rule and kept it to themselves.

You can also argue with overturning whether it’d be a home run. It may have, but it seems hard to say it definitely would have been. Given the ruling on the field, that’s a tough call. Yet the umpires didn’t seem to take long to decide.

So I think this basically settles the argument about replay. If the same semi-competent people who decide plays on the field are reviewing the video, is there a point, really?

by phila on Nov 1, 2009 1:20 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

This does explain why it didn’t take long to decide. If they had determined that balls hitting the camera=HR, the only question would have been where the ball hit. Replay showed that part of it clearly.

It’s spilled milk, really, but the only question is hypothetical: where would the ball have gone had the camera NOT been there? I wasn’t completely sold that it would have gone over, but had it not, it would have been unbelievably lucky—top railing if that.

More to the point is what WC wrote that this was ONCE AGAIN a goddamned 2-strike fail by Cole Hamels, and an absurd, run-consequent turn of events following brilliance, in a season full of them. Deeply questionable pitch selection, which only got worse in the 5th when he started mixing in a fat curveball.

by Wet Luzinski on Nov 1, 2009 8:38 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Well...

That certainly sucked. But the reality is that we’re down one game. The next one will be tough to get, but we’ve gotten to Sabathia before and can do it again.

Think of it this way; if we win tomorrow night then we’ve got Lee v. Burnett in Game 5. All the pressure in the world is on the Yankees then.

by ajay on Nov 1, 2009 1:21 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

wow

that was not conclusive enough to be a homerun, rules state otherwise, but i am more pissed at that non-called third strike on tex before the homerun, that was a strike, ump missed it, and thin-skinned hamels clearly got rattled because of it, he should not have, it was just a walk, therefore i am also pissed at hamels, grow a pair, a walk is not the end of the world up 3-0

by PhilsForever on Nov 1, 2009 1:35 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

C'mon Cole ...

Pound the corners! Get them to chase a pitch outside …

by d_c_guy on Nov 1, 2009 1:43 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

Who are. You?

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Nov 1, 2009 8:59 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I have to admit, I really like that commercial. There’s just something about the way Hamels says “Who are YOU?” that cracks me up.

Then again, I have a very low entertainment threshold LOL

by d_c_guy on Nov 1, 2009 2:09 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Boo to this game.

Cliff Lee should really be pitching tomorrow. I don’t like the idea of our season riding on Blanton.

by FuquaManuel on Nov 1, 2009 1:05 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

UIm, who do you think would pitch game 5?

For Who? My teammates.

For What? To Win.

How Much? Where do I sign?

by jonk on Nov 1, 2009 1:05 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Happ?

You are right, probably Blanton.

by FuquaManuel on Nov 1, 2009 1:08 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Even if Blanton blows it the series isn't wrapped up

It’s a 3-1 lead for the Yanks. Very difficult to overcome, but it’s happened.

Still, as a Yankee fan, I have to say I’m glad you guys aren’t throwing Lee in Game 4 and I completely think it’s the wrong call by the Phillies.

by GMan83201 on Nov 1, 2009 4:23 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

Werth and Ruiz both hit a lot of solo homers. Charlie could try switching Werth with Howard
and Feliz with Ruiz in the lineup.

by fan since late 40's on Nov 1, 2009 1:07 AM EDT reply actions   0 recs

He could, but you know he’s not going to. Last year, if I remember right, the one change he made was switching Werth and Victorino between the two and six spots in the lineup depending if it was a right-hander or left-hander starting. This year, except for inserting Francisco and Stairs in the lineup between Ibanez and Feliz in Yankee Stadium I think it’s been the same lineup since game one vs. the Rockies.

by phillyinportland on Nov 1, 2009 3:25 AM EDT up reply actions   0 recs

You Dance With Them What Brought You

A manager who starts juggling his lineup runs the risk of sending a message to his team that it’s time to panic, and the worse thing you can do in baseball is play tight. IMHO over-managing is much more of a risk in the postseason than staying too long with a non-performer. A couple of bad games doesn’t automatically mean that a player isn’t going to produce in the next game; it’s just in the postseason everything is magnified. It’s only if a player starts to look rattled that you consider moving him.

by d_c_guy on Nov 1, 2009 2:18 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The Bruntlett Move was def. a head scratcher

A guy with no pop, who has had a terrible year at the plate. And throwing curveballs to Swisher and Petite with two strikes were quite suspect. Still, I have faith in the Phils tonight. The Yankees have been getting the bounces and breaks the past two games, and that’s bound to change. And Howard has to have at least one game where he takes over, like he did in Game 4 last year with two bombs.

by phillynyc on Nov 1, 2009 10:29 AM EST reply actions   0 recs

It was ridiculous. Were you saving Fransisco for Rivera? Seriosuly?

For Who? My teammates.

For What? To Win.

How Much? Where do I sign?

by jonk on Nov 1, 2009 10:31 AM EST up reply actions   0 recs

and Bruntlett’s approach was for shit too. I believe he hit a 1-1 pitch after the ABs before him were taking advantage of wildness. If I had sent him up there—I’d have told him to not swing.

by Wet Luzinski on Nov 1, 2009 3:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I really hope that the stupid fans give Hamels some time and don’t run him out of town for his perceived “softness”.

by FuquaManuel on Nov 1, 2009 12:27 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

I really hope that the government stops screwing me over constantly in favor of the people who donate million dollars to them…

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Nov 1, 2009 1:29 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I’d like the rich to stop getting richer. In this vein, you can root against the Yankees.

by Wet Luzinski on Nov 1, 2009 2:51 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I wanted the ones booing him to slip and fall and all break a hip.

For Who? My teammates.

For What? To Win.

How Much? Where do I sign?

by jonk on Nov 1, 2009 1:38 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Rolenization

And it breaks my heart.

http://www.thegoodphight.com

by WholeCamels on Nov 1, 2009 2:10 PM EST via mobile up reply actions   0 recs

I thought it would happen to Rollins before Hamels…I always thought it was vaguely related to contract size, but I guess being inhuman last year (and people thinking that it was repeatable) has its price.

But hey – the eagles are kicking the crap out of the giants and i didn’t think there was a snowballs chance of that today – so go cupcakes

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Nov 1, 2009 2:30 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Only 1 pitcher has been consistently dominant in the World Series

His name is Mariano Rivera. And even he has some well documented hiccups. But I guess those only stand out because they are so odd.

by GMan83201 on Nov 1, 2009 3:23 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

We are referring to more than just world series performance – the world series outings just gives the morons more ammunition

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Nov 1, 2009 3:48 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I feel as though we are on different pages

My point is that it’s very, very difficult to have sustained success in the World Series, especially for pitchers.

by GMan83201 on Nov 1, 2009 3:56 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

ANd my point is that there are 162 games in a regular season and if anyone judges ANY player purely on world series performance then they really should just stop judging anyone

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Nov 1, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I think that's sorta what I'm saying dude

Even the best players can be inconsistent in the World Series.

by GMan83201 on Nov 1, 2009 7:55 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The only problem with that comparison is that Rolen didn’t make us WFC almost all by himself.

For Who? My teammates.

For What? To Win.

How Much? Where do I sign?

by jonk on Nov 1, 2009 2:31 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

And hey, the fans have been pretty good to Lidge despite his struggles this year. If Hamels bounces back I suspect it’ll be fine.

by phila on Nov 1, 2009 2:58 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

But the seeds that he is a primadonna hadn’t been planted for Lidge as they had for Hamels. The local media et al. have been spreading this nonsense about Hamels since he got here, now it is going to come out in full force.

by FuquaManuel on Nov 1, 2009 3:00 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t think it’s inevitable, though. A year ago everyone praised him for his poise. If, in a year, his reputation can be turned on its head for most fans, it can happen again.

by phila on Nov 1, 2009 4:00 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

It’s unlikely and not as easy as you might think…one bad outing, one bad moment and this city would turn on him fueled by a few idiots with loud megaphones.

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Nov 1, 2009 4:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I mean maybe. Or maybe not. But I do think the Rolen situation was probably different—there the club initiated a lot of the things that led to his departure, not the fans. I guess we’ll see.

by phila on Nov 1, 2009 4:59 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

We aren’t talking about departure, we’re talking about fan treatment – and the fans treated him like crap which made it easier for him to leave (and the fan opinion driven franchise let him go)

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Nov 1, 2009 5:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

No, that isn’t really accurate. The fans never really treated Rolen that badly until the very end, after he had demanded a trade. Early in his career, he was always pretty well-liked, more so even than 2008 Hamels in my opinion (adjusting for the level of overall enthusiasm for the team as a whole).

I would say that Abreu is probably a better parallel. The thing is, just because the fans have a difficult relationship with a player doesn’t mean that the player is inevitably going to leave. The fans had a difficult relationship with Mike Schmidt for many, many years — yes, that was before the FA system was fully developed, but he wouldn’t have been the first star pro athlete to be traded to please the fans and yet it never came to that. Likewise, the fans have had a difficult relationship with Donovan McNabb for over a decade now. Sometimes these things just result in cold wars that drag out but never explode into cataclysm.

by taco pal on Nov 1, 2009 5:16 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed. And at least part of the story in Rolen’s case was his relationship with Bowa. There’s no parallel with Hamels on that front.

There are a lot of good feelings around the Phillies these days that have eliminated the type of frustration that I think animated a lot of the Abreu criticism. Philadelphia will never be St. Louis but it’s not Philadelphia c. 2006, either.

by phila on Nov 1, 2009 5:25 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

God I hope it’s not st louis – fraudulent nonsense.

Did you hear the boos to Hamels departure last night?

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Nov 1, 2009 5:26 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Agreed on St. Louis—no one is that positive all the time.

Sure, but the fans behind the dugout clapped and a smattering of them even stood up while he was walking back.

by phila on Nov 1, 2009 5:34 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Mine too. He had a great season last year after coming up with a rep as being injury prone . He’s young and had two major life events (wedding and baby) in the midst of offseason media glare. Would any of these numbskulls really want to see him pitching on another team? This guy needs: better offseason training; some sports-themed psychotherapy; to develop another pitch or to make his lousy curveball better. He is a plus talent with subpar stats in 2009 despite(as we’ve noted here multiple times) arguably ok peripherals in spite of all this. You’d rather have Vicente Padilla or somesuch?

Rolenization is right. Who wouldn’t want Rolen at 3B RIGHT EFFING NOW (except that iirc he’s hurt?). Anyways, you get the point. Why Dallas Green is not a persona non grata in the Phils organization after his dyspeptic rant against Rolen still rankles me.

by Wet Luzinski on Nov 1, 2009 3:01 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Eagles

well, it’s an enjoyable ass-thrashing so far. The Giants just fumbled the opening kickoff after coming out of the lockerroom down 30-7. But I really don’t want the only Philadelphia wins over NY this weekend to be regular season variety. And Akers makes it 33-7.

by Wet Luzinski on Nov 1, 2009 2:49 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

YANKEES SUCK chant at the Linc as the zebras take Umenoryia’s (sp?) touchdown off the board after Andy Reid makes a successful challenge. Let’s hope this juju travels across Pattison Avenue.

by Wet Luzinski on Nov 1, 2009 3:10 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Nice game to listen to – there’s one radio station on the eagles network that ‘forgets’ they ain’t supposed to be brodcasting :)

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Nov 1, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Phils at +325 to win the series

Thats a buyers price my friends.

by fleeb on Nov 1, 2009 4:14 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

And that’s just what vegas wants you to think while they take your money.

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Nov 1, 2009 4:17 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

No, he thinks that Vegas’s reason for being is … to take your money. Mine, too, for that matter :-)

by d_c_guy on Nov 1, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I think they’ll win one more game

Don't frack with me or you'll get a punch in the kidneys...you've been warned

by jemagee on Nov 1, 2009 4:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I do think the original poster is correct. +325 would be break even if the Yankees have a 76.5% chance to win the series. Most statistical analysis has them less than that…BP for example has them at 72.4. If you flipped a coin the rest of the way, the yanks are only 68.5. So yes, simply from a numbers point of view, there is value in betting on the Phillies at this point.

by yankees095 on Nov 1, 2009 4:31 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

The story of the game last night was that Pettitte was mostly effective when he got in trouble, and Hamels mostly was not. Pettitte had thrown 51 pitches and allowed three runs through two innings; he threw about the same number over the next four, and allowed just one more run.

I hate chalking things up to intangibles, and I particularly dislike Pettitte as I do any athlete who’s ostentatiously religious—I was waiting for him to be lifted so I could bellow, “Where’s your messiah now, Pettitte?”—but he kept his composure superbly and controlled the pace. He threw over when the Phils got runners on, antagonizing the crowd—and probably making the hitters antsy. And once the Yankees gave him the lead, he ran with it. Even the second enormous Werth homer was a good piece of pitching in that, with a three-run lead and nobody on, he went right after him.

Hamels, again, couldn’t get out of his own way. One thing went bad, and he let it snowball. It was all the more baffling and frustrating because you couldn’t have distinguished his first three innings from the great work he did in October ’08.

Tonight surely seems like a steep uphill climb, but this Phils team is comfortable with that. They don’t scare and they won’t lie down.

by dajafi on Nov 1, 2009 5:53 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Victorino bears a lot of responsibility for that. With Pettitte on the ropes in the second, he should have been super-selective, knowing that the pressure is all on the pitcher in that situation. Instead, we went up there hacking crazily at two pitches way out of the strike zone. Yeah he ended up getting a sac fly, but he potentially could have been up 2-0 with the bases loaded, 1 out, and 3 runs in. If he hadn’t made an out in that situation, Girardi would have come very close to pulling the plug.

Even if the Yankees had still come back to win, we would have killed their bullpen for tonight and tomorrow.

by taco pal on Nov 1, 2009 5:59 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

"As many of you know, we tour the field during the series whenever we go to a new ballpark, and discuss specific ground rules and potential trouble areas just like that. Because we cannot control what the cameraman does with the camera, one of the specific ground rules is when the ball hits the camera, home run."

The rulebood does indeed give the umpires the authority to make rulings for any rule not covered.

I think it was you who said above, ground rules are made by the home team. Correct. I’m assuming those ground rules did not cover movable cameras in the OF.
The umpire walked the field, saw the camera, made a decision.

I’m not sure what is left to discuss then.
Should the umpires have told the coaches? Sure. And if they didn’t (something I don’t think we know either way), then shame on them. But as you pointed out, it wouldn’t matter…a rule is a rule.

by yankees095 on Nov 1, 2009 6:18 PM EST reply actions   0 recs

Here’s what the rulebook says:

The manager of the home team shall present to the umpire-in-chief and the opposing manager any ground rules he thinks necessary covering the overflow of spectators upon the playing field, batted or thrown balls into such overflow, or any other contingencies. If these rules are acceptable to the opposing manager they shall be legal. If these rules are unacceptable to the opposing manager, the umpire-in-chief shall make and enforce any special ground rules he thinks are made necessary by ground conditions, which shall not conflict with the official playing rules.

From this, I gather that the umpire-in-chief has the authority to make new ground rules only if a new rule has been presented to him by the home team manager and the road team manager disagrees with that proposal. Clearly, that did not happen yesterday, so I question your conclusion on question #1.

But more importantly, you keep refusing to confront question #2. Even if we stipulate that a rule is a rule (which is questionable in this case), should the rule applied by the umpires yesterday have been the rule? I don’t think it should have been the rule. Do you think it should have been the rule?

by taco pal on Nov 1, 2009 6:24 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

  1. I think it was you who said way above, the ground rules for every stadium are made in advance and posted in each lockerroom (umpires included). I’m assuming those rules did not cover movalbe cameras in the OF. So the umpires walked the field and said to themselves, how are we going to handle this. They made up their mind. The fact they walked the field should tell us there must be some policy in place by MLB that gives the umpires this authority. I mean, they certainly didn’t walk the field to get in their cardio. :-)
  1. I don’t have a problem with the way the rule was applied. (No, I am honestly not saying that because it benefitted the yanks.) The umpires should be the final authority in decisions that aren’t already determined. I’m not sure what rule would have been better. Perhaps (and this is totally based on assumpition) they were working under the belief that the camera would not have protruded. But they had already decided it was too late to change now because they already said “if it hit the camera, it’s a homerun” You can be sure tonite the camera will not protrude.

by yankees095 on Nov 1, 2009 6:32 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Ok now I’m actually going to eat. I think we’ve been very clear on an alternative rule: you look at the replay and try to decide if the ball actually, would have, you know, been a home run if the camera wasn’t there. That’s our alternative. The rule that was used was different. It was, “if it hits the camera, it’s a home run.” If you think the rule they used was better, please explain why you think that.

by phila on Nov 1, 2009 6:39 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I guess I handled the explanation in my reply below.

The “look at the replay” alternative would open up all kinds of problems. Perhaps they assumed there wouldn’t be a camera angle. Be honest, aren’t you a little surprised we got as good a view as we did – and as good a view we had, are you that sure either way.

I realize it’s the WS and there would be many cameras covereing the broadcaost, but it’s not like Fox would have cameras for every single view in the stadium.

by yankees095 on Nov 1, 2009 6:46 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I don’t think anyone’s ever disputed that movable cameras are not covered in Citizens Bank Park’s official ground rules, so your point in the first half of your first paragraph is irrelevant.

Regarding your point in the second half of your first paragraph, you seem to be saying that because the umpires did it, that proves they had the authority to do it. That does not seem to me to be very sound logic. My position is that the umpires have the authority to do things that the MLB rulebook authorizes them to do. I wasn’t able to find an applicable provision in the rulebook that authorizes them to do what they did, but I might have missed it. If you can find such a provision, then you will convince me. The rulebook is online so it would make more sense for you to go and read it than to simply guess at its contents.

Regarding the point in your second paragraph, I guess we’re just going to disagree. It seems to me like the epitome of foolishness to make a ground rule about movable cameras that is based on the premise that the cameras will remain stationary. The alternative rule Phila just mentioned above is a much more sensible rule.

by taco pal on Nov 1, 2009 6:41 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Ok I’m going to eat dinner after this point. The issue is not with the application of the rule. No one disputes the ball hit the camera. The issue is about whether the rule makes sense. Our point is this: it is a stupid rule.

It doesn’t matter that it doesn’t, on its face, affect one team more than the other.

It is inconsistent with how other similar issues are dealt with, like fan interference.

It is not aimed at determining whether the ball would have gone over the fence—it’s just the easiest rule to use. For instance, you can think of a situation where a ball is falling at so large an angle that it would hit the camera but not go out of the park. You can imagine a situation where the ball hits the top railing and bounces back into play.

It undermines the purpose of replay, which is to look carefully at a difficult call to see if there is conclusive evidence to overrule the call on the field.

by phila on Nov 1, 2009 6:27 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I see more of your point now. Here’s why I don’t think it’s a “stupid rule.”
I’ll postulate the umpires made a rule that would be the easiest for them to handle.

It’s like this. Even with 6 umpires, there is no way they would have an umpire in position to determine if a ball off a camera would have left the yard or not. (You and I have likely seen it several times and may not agree whether it would have – I’ll say 85% chance it would, but obviously not sure).

Addionally, relying on replay wasn’t a solution as they probably figured there would be no camera angle to decisevly say whether it would have left the yard.

They came up with a rule that would be the best solution for them. Black and white. Camera=homerun.

I don’t think they were shying from judgment calls – that’s their job. They were shying away from virtually impossible to get correct judgment calls.

by yankees095 on Nov 1, 2009 6:40 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

So in that case, do you think there should be a rule that says any ball that hits a fan reaching over the wall a la Jeffrey Maier should be a home run? If not, why not?

by taco pal on Nov 1, 2009 6:43 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

ok, and this time i’m really leaving. When you adopt that rule, you’re necessarily sacrificing accuracy with convenience. You admit as much yourself when you say “They came up with a rule that would be the best solution for them. Black and white.” For me, that’s not nowhere good enough—the umpires have to get the call right, not just be consistent. It would be consistent to say we’re just not going to call curveballs strikes tonight because they move a lot and they’re sometimes difficult to call. But no one would think that’s acceptable. I don’t see why we think that’s acceptable here.

by phila on Nov 1, 2009 6:45 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

I am obviously not a major league umpire. I work several D1 games a year, so I’m saying how we generally handle things. We prefer to take as much out of our hands as possible.

I don’t think they are trying to shy away from tough calls, I think they are trying to shy away from almost impossible calls.

They have an umpire just a foot or so away in order to judge curveballs. So they can feel confident they’ll get those right.

Perhaps, and again this is assumption, they saw the camera was flush with the fence. They made their ground rule based on that. Had the camera remained flush with the fence then there would be no need for judgment – any ball that hits a camera flush with the fence would have certainly left the yard. Obviously the camera moved, but the rule was already determined.

At this point we both are now reduced to speculating. We don’t know for sure if the Phillies had a chance to discuss this rule. (Perhaps the umpires did indeed tell the bench coach and he just blew it off with the other 10 one in a million groundrules.)

Maybe we will learn more tonite…though I doubt it. Buck and McCarver will likely spend most of their time proving why neither shold have a job. They don’t enjoy relaying useful information.

Enjoy the game. And here’s hoping for no controversy…though I think we both agree that isn’t likely.

by yankees095 on Nov 1, 2009 7:12 PM EST up reply actions   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Analysis and features focusing on Philadelphia Phillies baseball.
Start posting about the Phillies »

Join SB Nation and dive into communities focused on all your favorite teams.

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Small
Ruben Gets It

Recent FanPosts

Deadpool_small
Is the bench really "signifcantly" upgraded?
Small
Should Rollins Bat 7th?
39135485-59af19dbb26654095f910f34176af094_4ae8a81e-scaled_small
Predictions Group
Deadpool_small
Early 2010 Pecota doesn't really like the Phills
Greg_luzinski_small
No dismissal for woman in sex-for-tickets case
Small
Cost Certainty: What Does It Mean?
Djackson-1280x800-players_small
Phils sign Jose Contreras to a 1 year deal
Priest_holmes_small
The Phillies 5th starter will be ...?
Small
John Sickels Top 20 Phillies prospects

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >

SPONSORS


Blog Lords

Wholecamels_small WholeCamels

Boys_small jonk

Dsc04697_small David S. Cohen

Meltingface_small dajafi

Colevatar_small Matt Swartz

Phillyfriar_small PhillyFriar