One last question, is there anyone who would not take this pitch in this location, prior to knowing the results?
When the balls and strikes are automated - will anyone miss the complaining about balls and strikes? Not me.
Does anyone miss the 5 minute temper tantrums on bang/bang plays at first or close ones at the bases. I find it perfectly fine that in roughly 45 seconds Don Denkinger could have been erased from the history books.
Gerrit cole apparently declined to be available for post game interviews with the notion he is no longer employed by the astros.
Dominik85 posted:Gerrit cole apparently declined to be available for post game interviews with the notion he is no longer employed by the astros.
‘Asked by a team official to meet with reporters after their 6-2 loss to the Washington Nationals on Wednesday, Cole, who was wearing a Boras Corp. hat, said, "I'm not employed by the team."
However, after agreeing to interviews, he started out with, "I guess as a representative of myself ..."’
Everyone knows that he’s getting paid and he’s earned it but do you really want to come across as it’s about nothing but money?
He should get paid but why not wait with this talk a week, give the reporters some rehearsed answers and then start talking to teams on monday?
Technically he is right but what does he gain by saying that?
A different perspective on the youthfulness of Soto, as part of an MLB article...
" Juan Soto danced in the middle of the visitors' clubhouse at Minute Maid Park. His teammates were pouring champagne and beer on his head, and for the first time in his career, Soto was able to celebrate with a beer in his hand, instead of the sparkling water he used during the first four celebrations.
“I’m thankful to be celebrating this with my first beer with these guys,” said Soto, who turned 21 last week. “This is incredible.” "
Dominik85 posted:He should get paid but why not wait with this talk a week, give the reporters some rehearsed answers and then start talking to teams on monday?
Technically he is right but what does he gain by saying that?
Agree 100%. He may not be but that came across as very selfish.
hshuler posted:Dominik85 posted:Gerrit cole apparently declined to be available for post game interviews with the notion he is no longer employed by the astros.
‘Asked by a team official to meet with reporters after their 6-2 loss to the Washington Nationals on Wednesday, Cole, who was wearing a Boras Corp. hat, said, "I'm not employed by the team."
However, after agreeing to interviews, he started out with, "I guess as a representative of myself ..."’
Everyone knows that he’s getting paid and he’s earned it but do you really want to come across as it’s about nothing but money?
Agree but from what I've read he was livid at not coming into the game. More frustration about the way they lost than a selfishness thing. Probably didn't realize how it reflects on him but thats how it is with athletes sometimes.
Dominik85 posted:Gerrit cole apparently declined to be available for post game interviews with the notion he is no longer employed by the astros.
Given his contract status would be the same if the Astros won, I wonder if he would have declined the interview under those circumstances. Probably not. He just had his cranky pants on!
PABaseball posted:hshuler posted:Dominik85 posted:Gerrit cole apparently declined to be available for post game interviews with the notion he is no longer employed by the astros.
Agree but from what I've read he was livid at not coming into the game. More frustration about the way they lost than a selfishness thing. Probably didn't realize how it reflects on him but thats how it is with athletes sometimes.
Being a gracious winner is (relatively) very easy. Losing game 7 of the WS, then giving interviews to national media would be extremely hard--even harder if you were your team's best pitcher and the manager had chosen not to use you. Talking with the media is part of the job description for a player like Cole, but I'm not sure how a person could ever really prepare for that situation. I hope it was just a moment of frustration, rather than an indication of his character. I admit my initial reaction was to judge him pretty harshly for this; but maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt. (Although I'm sure Verlander also was feeling mighty frustrated given his postseason record in 2019, and so far as I know he handled the media without incident.)
Maybe deserves its own thread, but this article on ESPN.com is interesting re: why postseason games are so long:
https://www.espn.com/mlb/story...ries-games-last-long
In particular, there is this: "Postseason commercial breaks are longer than regular-season breaks, by about 50 seconds. There are 17 between-inning breaks (one after every half inning except the final one), plus pitching change breaks (which are also longer in the postseason), so that adds around 17 minutes. This is baked into every postseason game, so if you want to know what an average postseason game is, start at 3 hours, 20 minutes."
As a Nats fan, I have to say, their winning game 6 and then the whole thing got the ump off the hook for that interference call.
Generally, the umpiring in this WS was just awful, and in the HD era, it was sorely exposed. Trea Turner in particular must've ticked someone off at some point, because he got rung at least 3 times on third strikes that weren't really that close. Robot umps? Sign me up. And oh yeah, let's not forget that on the first play of game 6, Turner was called out at first on a play that had to be reviewed to get the call right. But hey, the ump only missed it by like 5 feet's worth of throw. Everyone saw it but him.
As for Cole, I was kind of surprised by the post-game discussion. His facial expressions and body language while warming up the first time indicated he didn't feel he could do it. He tried to loosen up later in the game, same thing, then didn't come in. My impression was they would've used him and didn't only because he just hadn't recovered enough to go. If that wasn't the case, why all the grimaces and warmups cut short? In any event, those who have followed Cole know that his talent is his calling card but he's not what you would call a great teammate otherwise. His comments after game 7 were not slips of the lip so much as catching the real GC with his guard down. My guess is Boras got him on the phone and helped him to try to rehab his image the day after, so that it wouldn't become a negative in his forthcoming free agency. In which he figures to nab $30 million plus per year for 7 years.
As for the Nats, it's really good to see them get this, especially since it's the last hurrah for the group on the field. Only 12 of the starters, key subs and pitchers used in the World Series are under contract for next year. I don't see how the Nats can pay what they owe Scherzer and Corbin, then also pay $30m/year to Rendon and Strasburg, too. They aren't going to pay Zimmerman per the $18m team option; expect the team to pay his buyout and then maybe try to sign him for a far lesser amount to be a part-time guy. Turner, Soto and Robles return but guys like Eaton, Kendrick, Cabrera, Dozier and Hudson have to max their value now, as it could be the last time they get to in each of their careers.
And since they won, it won't be sour grapes for me to put in my 2 cents about the interference call and the rule generally, as an academic point.
Before we do anything else, does anyone disagree that the rule needs to be changed with respect to the penalty assessed? Let's say you call Turner out. Why does Yan Gomes have to return to first base? OK, so he doesn't get to stay at third, but no one was making any play on him at 2nd. Sans interference, he would've been at 2nd. He should keep that. The rule has always said that he has to be sent back, so the rule was properly applied, I know, but to paraphrase Mr. Macawber, the rule is a ass. If nothing else, change this.
As to the application of the rule, I don't know how Davey Martinez lasted as long as he did before he totally lost it. Just a horrible, horrible call.
Most such interference calls happen on bunts or dribblers that stay right around home plate. Why? Because that's when the runner gets into the throwing lane the fielder has to use. In this case, the ball Turner hit bounced about 45 feet up the third base line. Peacock had a clear throwing lane to the base. He threw into the runner, and in fact threw a tailing sinker to boot. Heck, I think Turner had the play beat, and the most he got out of his contact with Gurriel was the extra base when the ball got away. But saving Peacock from his own horrible throw is not what the rule is for, so applying it to this play was just wrong, wrong, wrong.
The rule requires that Turner BOTH (a) interfere and (b) be outside the runner's lane. The runner's lane is like the batter's box, in the sense that it's a safe harbor space. If a batter is hit by a batted ball that's in fair territory, he's out -- unless he's still in the batter's box. Part of the batter's box is in fair territory, mind you. But if he's in the batter's box, he's not out. The rule says that even a ball in fair territory is a dead ball and treated as if it were foul.
Similarly, if the runner is in the runner's lane, he cannot be deemed guilty of interference even if the ball hits him. (Unless he pulls an A-Rod and swats at it or some such.) The runner's lane is privileged space.
But a runner not in the lane is not out just because a ball hits him. He still has to be deemed to have interfered. This is where the umpires screwed up. Turner was not in the runner's lane, so he's not in the safe space. But he also didn't interfere. The mere act of running slightly outside the lane is not interference. Peacock had a clean throwing lane and Peacock threw wildly. That wasn't because of anything Turner did. Turner didn't alter his path, he didn't raise his arms, nothing. He just ran to the base. I saw no act of interference.
Think of the very common play where the SS has his throw sail and the 1B comes off the bag for the grab-and-swipe tag attempt. On most of those plays the batter-runner is outside the runner's lane, in fair territory. But if the 1B has the ball come out of his glove, is the batter-runner called out? NEVER. Well, the Peacock-Turner play is just like that play.
Maybe the rule could be revised to make this, the standard understanding and application, more clear. But to my mind, the problem is not the rule language.
The problem is, we had a World Series that's supposed to have the best of the best on the field, and MLB put umpires out there who embarrassed themselves all 7 games. The only saving grace is that, as best I could tell, it didn't decide any one game, nor the outcome of the Series.
Well said, Midlo. Well said.