On The Other Hand...
I wrote earlier about the overblown controversy in Game 2 of the ALCS, and I can stick by that. However, umpiring has been very weak in both LCS, especially Game 4 of the ALCS and now, today, the NLCS. It's not been terrible today (I thought many of the strike calls that the Cards bitched about today were in fact strikes), but I think the Cardinals' bitching got on Phil Cuzzi's nerves today and when he threw LaRussa and Edmonds out of the game, had his last nerves frayed. But his strike 2 call on Edmonds was complete garbage.
My main comment on the umpiring, though, is that it seems there's an ego thing going on. These guys aren't in the right position on some of these calls and I think they believe that since they're the closest to the play then they don't have to justify their calls. "That's the way I saw it," seems to be the best explanation, and they refuse to alter their ways, and it's leading to these kinds of calls.
Do their calls affect the outcome of the game (who wins, who loses)? Hard to say. I believe no matter what happens in a game, even if you were able to alter one play, you can't say that all the things that happened would still happen. Many broadcasters like to say, "Well, this guy got caught stealing and what happened next? The batter hit a HR and it'd be 2-0 instead of 1-0." I take issue with that. I've always felt the pitches would be different in a different situation, a different outcome is possible, even probable.
Anyway, I still feel you have to play where a close call won't beat you, but the umpires definitely need to keep that ego in check.
posted by Chris @ 10/16/2005 06:35:00 PM
4 comments
4 Comments:
What people seemed to be bitching about in today's game had more to do with the umpire not being consistent. And it was pretty wild when they showed some of the pitches after the fact, and how a ball placed in the exact same spot would be called a ball and then a strike an inning later. It's hard to dispute that kind of footage, but did it have an outcome on the game, as Chris said, it's hard to say. The boneheaded running of the Cards with 0 outs in the ninth. Why would you go to home on a short grounder to third? That made less sense to me than any of the Umps calls.
Yeah, consistency was an issue, but how about common sense? We all know that the pitch Edmonds got strike 2 on was in no way a strike.
It reminds me of the discussion in Jim Bouton's BALL FOUR where the umpires get vindictive after arguments:
"My rookie year, [Yankee catcher] Elston Howard came out to the mound and he said, 'Don't throw any strikes. [Umpire Ed] Runge wants to teach [Boston Red Sox slugger] George Scott a lesson.' Scott, a rookie, had been complaining about calls.
"'Whaddya mean?'
"'Just keep the ball outside.'
"Elston runs back and holds the catcher's glove about six inches outside. I hit the glove. Strike one. George Scott shakes his head."
"I think, Hey, this is going to be easy. My next pitch was about a foot outside. Strike two. I think, Holy s---, he must have done something bad."
"Third pitch bounced a foot in front of home plate. Scott swung and missed. Strike three. Scott was pissed. He knew the umpire was getting back at him, and he kept his mouth shut for a long time. Runge taught both of us a lesson. He taught Scott a lesson about complaining, and he taught me what can happen if the umpire doesn't like you."
Oh, I was in no way trying to say that the pitch to Edmonds was a strike. No, that was total bullshit, but you can't argue balls and strikes. You will get thrown out faster than shit doing that whether it's justified or not. It's bullshit, but it's the way it is.
Let's not forget Edmonds' overacting drama when the pitches came close, wheeling back 20 feet before stopping. He looked like a soccer player rolling around on the ground to get a penalty shot.
Post a Comment
<< Home