Navigation: Jump to content areas:


Pro Quality. Fan Perspective.
Login-facebook
Around SBN: Dana White: Carlos Condit Accepts Rematch With Nick Diaz

Tim McClelland Verifies the ineptitude of MLB Umpires

On the play with Cano and Posada, I thought Cano was on the base. I was waiting for two players to be on the base, and when there was never the situation where both of them were on the base at the same time. When he tagged Cano, I thought Cano was on the base, and when Jorge touched the base and continued and tagged Posada out, I thought Posada was out.

That's right, folks. You heard it straight for the horse's mouth. He made the call because it was the outcome he was 'waiting' to have happen. He didn't actually pay attention to what happened in the play itself. Instead, he ANTICIPATED a certain outcome as probably happening, and ruled accordingly. Never mind actually verifying a play happened one way or another, you can just ANTICIPATE it happening.

Star-divide

So you know what? Why not just tell pitchers to not pitch? There's about a 60% chance it'll be a strike, anyway. So just go ahead and call a strike...it's fair to anticipate it, right?

Don't agree because of a 40% chance otherwise? Okay. Fine. A-Rod was batting under .200 in the postseason in the last few years. Why not just go back, replay his at-bats, and just only let him on once every 5 at-bats...chosen randomly.I mean, there's a good chance your ANTICIPATION will be right, right?

And when Figgins tries to steal 2nd? Go ahead and call him safe 3 out of 4 times. Don't watch the actual play, though. And outfielders, don't bother catching fly balls anymore. I mean, how often do those get dropped? Just let it drop next time, because McClelland is gonna go ahead and anticipate that it would be caught. Fair assumption, it happens 99.9% of the time. Matt Holliday will thank you later, too.

In fact, just give us the ALCS. Given the last decade, and the '02 and '05 postseason, one can ANTICIPATE we'd beat the Yankees. And with the way the Angels have played the NL this year?

Los Angeles Angels: 2009 World Champions of Anticipation.

Congrats McClelland, you're an idiot.

This Fan-Post is authored by an independent fan. Tell us what you think and how you feel.

Comment 132 comments  |  4 recs  | 

Do you like this story?

Comments

Display:

Wow

Looks like these old bastards are becoming endangered very soon with comments like these straight from a crew chief!

Beat the Angels if you can... Survive if they let you.

by blast21dave on Oct 20, 2009 11:02 PM PDT reply actions  

Exactly

I hate how a lot of Angels fans whine year after year about the umpiring instead of acknowledging that we were beat by a superior team. The fact is that most of the bad calls have been in our favor this year.

by HungryHunter on Oct 20, 2009 11:16 PM PDT up reply actions  

I hate how people just assume ...

that the game will go on exactly how it played out even without the poor officiating. You have no idea if it would have affected the game. How do you know how the players would have responded to proper officiating?

Poor officiating is ruining the quality of the game.

If the Halos won tonight in a world where CC was squeezed, I could not cheer nor gloat about the win. I’d put a little asterisk next to the W and feel guilty and feel bad for the team that was slighted.

I love this team.

by Downing Rules on Oct 20, 2009 11:20 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Our World Series MVP showed up as a steroid user.

I guess our championship is a big asterisk to you.

I've got nothing.

by bc56274 on Oct 20, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

Once again. Glaus was found to be ordering PEDS from September 2003 to May of 2004.

Now, let’s do some elementary school math:

2003 is bigger than 2002.
2004 is bigger than 2003, so it is bigger than 2002 just liek 2003.

That means that 2003 and 2004 come AFTER 2002.

After. Not at the same time. Not before. After.

(High School critical thinking skills would notice that these dates would have stoked Glaus for the 2004 baseball season. Let the record show that Glaus lasted all of 58 games for the Halos in 2004. And he was off to the D’Backs thereafter.)

You too can be a baseball media analyst! Just don't allow your need to be wrong in public to get in the way of your ignorance.

by Stirrups on Oct 20, 2009 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

And Andy Pettitte said he only did HGH once.

I suppose you believe that too.

I've got nothing.

by bc56274 on Oct 20, 2009 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

Yours is little more than the claims that ALL players were juicing in the late 90'2 through early 00's.

I could just as easily toss out the theory that Glaus was struggling with his shoulder injuries of 2003 and only resorted to PEDs to speed up recovery (oh, wait, that would be what actually did happen!)

Neither you nor I know shit, so we live off of the facts. And the facts in this matter are that Glaus juiced AFTER 2002.

You too can be a baseball media analyst! Just don't allow your need to be wrong in public to get in the way of your ignorance.

by Stirrups on Oct 20, 2009 11:59 PM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

We don't know shit, you're correct.

We just know Glaus won a World Series MVP and was later busted for cheating.

And we’d like to think those two things didn’t intercede, but…

We don’t know shit.

I've got nothing.

by bc56274 on Oct 21, 2009 12:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

So he decided to use them once testing started

Come on now that’s like telling the cop that pulled me over for speeding that I cant believe I was speeding and this is the first time ever yet he just got lucky and caught me. Screw math lets use common sense for this one.

With that being said who gives 2 shits anyways? Whats that have to do with the Angels having the shit kicked out of them to the point of embarrassment. Talking about umpires being the blame is not standing up and taking accountability for your actions. At least McClelland has stood up and taken blame and if you listened to any of the interviews of the Angel players they did the same. So lets stop talking about some conspiracy theory. The only person on the grassy knoll stood on a hill 60ft 6 inch throwing bullets at our hitters and knocking them off one at a time…….

Sack Up Thursday and show some heart and passion…..

Willie Mays Aikens is FREeeeeeeee

by Angel Aviator on Oct 21, 2009 12:00 AM PDT up reply actions  

More like...

“So, driver, I just caught you speeding. So it’s reasonable to assume that you speed all the time. Here is a ticket for yesterday. And another one for last week. And two more for the month before last, and…”

And I am not disputing the situation at hand, at all. Just the cheap shot at 2002. Out of place and undeserved.

You too can be a baseball media analyst! Just don't allow your need to be wrong in public to get in the way of your ignorance.

by Stirrups on Oct 21, 2009 12:05 AM PDT up reply actions  

It was more of a cheap shot at DowningRules.

Some people can take a little ribbing without going insane.

I've got nothing.

by bc56274 on Oct 21, 2009 12:07 AM PDT up reply actions  

As I said not so sure what it has to do with anything

A good friend of mine that played during that time has told me that he thinks more then 80% of players used during his time in the show……I have been told by him about many and they are not on the “list:”

Willie Mays Aikens is FREeeeeeeee

by Angel Aviator on Oct 21, 2009 12:13 AM PDT up reply actions  

Glaus owns a DeLorean

you big highly edumacated dummy

by eyespy on Oct 21, 2009 2:32 AM PDT up reply actions  

That's a great point

Bad officiating distorts the flow of the game in unpredictable ways. The only sure thing is that it hurts the team the blown calls go against.

But one thing is quite predictable about bad officiating: when it is cited later as an influence on the outcome, someone is going to come along and call it “whining.”

So I guess we’re just supposed to bend over and take it to show how tough and manly we are.

Yeah, that all makes perfect sense.

What we've got can't be bought

by rspencer on Oct 21, 2009 12:52 AM PDT up reply actions  

+1

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Oct 21, 2009 5:46 AM PDT up reply actions  

I see the light!

Our terrible playoff record since 2004 is the result of poor officiating. /end sarcasm

Of course poor officiating affects the game in unpredictable ways but that does not absolve the team for not executing. “If only” is a game we can play all day but its really old to keep blaming the officiating especially when most of the calls have gone our way.

by HungryHunter on Oct 21, 2009 10:16 AM PDT up reply actions  

Again

if you’re going to insist that ‘most of the calls have gone our way,’ you’re going to need to provide some kind of proof.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 21, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

Fact? Really?

Sources, please.

This thread has nothing to do with whether or not the calls cost us the game. Please don’t make it that.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 20, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

It was definitely irrelevant. I agree

I mean, sure we could play a Rube Goldberg-esqe chain reaction game in which this had an outcome, since every and all plays afterward are impacted in some way, but it was still a 10-1 game.

That’s why I don’t mention any impact on the game…I only highlight the very clear stupidity, arrogance, and shocking candidness of this interview.

Since he says specifically that he was ‘waiting’ for the outcome, and since it’s quite clear that it was NOT the outcome, it means he worked solely off what he assumed would be the outcome, rather than watching the play. Since he made the call based on what was waited for, rather than what happened, this ‘ineptitude’ at its finest.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 20, 2009 11:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

Umpiring in pretty much every series this postseason has been about as bad as I can ever recall. I'm not sure how some of these morons are still employed.

It might be time to implement an instant replay in the postseason.

The good news: less moronic calls.

The bad news: five hour games.

I've got nothing.

by bc56274 on Oct 20, 2009 11:25 PM PDT up reply actions  

I have no issue with longer games

in fact, I’d say instant replay in NFL games can be a rather tense, exciting moment, building up to a highly anticipated moment.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 20, 2009 11:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

i want the world series to be decided by a bad call

just so i can hear these cocksuckers wax poetic about the element of human error in the game.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Oct 21, 2009 1:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

not when you are actually at the game

then it blows because you have no idea what is going on.
Most places won’t show the replays on the jumbotron.

by LosAngel on Oct 22, 2009 12:15 AM PDT up reply actions  

The Swisher pickoff was shown on the Jumbotron.

It could happen! Let's do this for Nick Adenhart, Courtney Stewart, and Henry Pearson.

by AlanFalcon on Oct 22, 2009 8:58 AM PDT up reply actions  

Then that was a mistake

We could very easily get fined for it.

RIP #34

by linkbruin on Oct 22, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

I heard it wrong on the radio, my mistake.

They talked about the fans reacting to the replay on the small screens in the stadium and I misconstrued that as being also on the jumbotron.

It could happen! Let's do this for Nick Adenhart, Courtney Stewart, and Henry Pearson.

by AlanFalcon on Oct 22, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

The millions at home

take precedent over the thousands at the game. And even fans at the game get to erupt in celebration/disdain at the call made.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 22, 2009 9:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

We already have 5 hour games...

Girardi is doing that with his 72 mound visits.

All joking aside, how much longer would the game really be if someone looked at a few controversial plays and got them right? It can’t take much longer than the time the manager spends arguing fruitlessly with the umps now. The time is already spent arguing pointlessly… let’s use that time to get the call right.

by thetooth on Oct 21, 2009 4:52 PM PDT up reply actions  

Irrelevant, also.

This post is directed at the state of umpiring and the mindset of a crew chief. Scary stuff, and while it did not have an affect on the game, these guys still have job, and there is plenty of baseball left for them to destroy.

What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.

by clover_black on Oct 20, 2009 11:22 PM PDT up reply actions  

still have "a" job

What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.

by clover_black on Oct 20, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

job = papers w/med hemp rolled inside

Only a stoned out of his mind official would admit to something like this … unless it is their plan as Major League Umpires to ruin this game as we knew and loved it.

Doesn’t the Umpire’s Union need to negotiate a new contract pretty soon?

by eyespy on Oct 21, 2009 2:38 AM PDT up reply actions  

however

bad umpiring can get you emotionally down, but that is not my point, however i agree it had no effect on outcome.

bad umpiring should not be tolerated. these playoffs were downright awful for playoffs. even the 2008 world series was terrible. part of it is because in this day and age we can break down everything into minute details (see Rivera spitting frame by frame – note that I am not saying he did or did not spit, just used to make a point). i used to be against replay use in baseball, but this year i have seen enough. there were terrible calls even going in angels favor, that i was pissed against.

by Halos in DE on Oct 21, 2009 9:26 AM PDT up reply actions  

Irrelevant? Not exactly
Horrible umpiring, but absolutely irrelevant to the outcome of the game.

One can look at the line score and deduce that no further runs were scored, but it affects the inning when only one out results from a play rather than two. It affects the number of pitches which need to be thrown in the inning, to begin with. It also affects the composition of the at-bat sequences for the other team in subsequent innings—whether Rodriguez leads off an inning, for example, or whether he comes to the plate with the potential for hitters in front of him to be on base. In that sense—in an existential sense, if you will—changes to the momentary outcome of the game change the ultimate outcome of the game, in one way or another.

I am on record here as being one who is opposed to the use of instant-replay in questioned calls. My reasoning, for years has been (1) that the human element of baseball umpiring is an integral part of the game, and (2) the use of instant replay would further slow down a sport already seen by more and more American fans as being too slow .

While I haven’t watched much of the NLDS games or the NLCS, I saw enough of the ALDS between Angels and Red Sox and between the Yankees and Twins to see several—many, really—blown calls that resulted not from the umpire being out of position but from him being exactly on the spot. The “double that wasn’t” in the Yankees/Twins series, where the ump was mere feet from where the ball landed, comes to mind. In the game last night, the cosmic balances were leveled by Swisher being called out for leaving 3B too soon (though he hadn’t), while he shouldn’t have been there in the first place had he been correctly called out at 2B on the pickoff, where Aybar’s tag was a matter of several inches in front of the bag. While it can be said that everything was OK from the blown call on the pickoff since Swisher didn’t score, it can also be logically theorized that the loss of that call (1) got into Kazmir’s head, and (2) caused him to pitch differently with a runner on 2B instead of with one more out and no RISP.

The little league play at 3B with Posada and Cabrera both being tagged out by Napoli, with one Posada being called out, was the final straw for me. Cabrera was out from any camera angle Fox could muster—hell, it would be been an obvious out from the viewpoint in the international space station—and calls like this simply should not be allowed to stand when there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

I know that the bargaining agreement with the umpire’s union may be an impediment to getting instant replay used more extensively than just disputed home run calls, but the time has arrived to prevent these missed calls from interfering with the outcome of the game. The owners and the Commissioner need to make this happen for the 2010 season.

"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon

by George Kaplan on Oct 21, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

This is spot on.

The Angels are the only ones to be held accountable for the fact that they could only manage a single run of Sabathia. CC is a great pitcher, but the Halos hitters have a job to do, and they failed to do it. It is their job to adjust, to figure out a viable strategy, to employ new offensive tactics. For heaven’s sake, they did not even bother to avail themselves of the easiest offensive resource at their disposal: do nothing. They had a pitcher with short rest on the mound, and all they had to do to take advantage of that was stand there and let him wear himself down. Even this was too much to ask, apparently. Totally boneheaded. A single run, failure well-deserved.

However, many strong cases can be made to the effect that the reason that the Yankees scored 10 runs was because of poor officiating. The leveraging effect of bad calls early in the game lead, one step at a time, to larger consequences over time.

GK goes into calls on the basepaths. He introduces totally valid thought experiments for consideration. I am willing to add balls/strikes calls to the dialog. Kaz was hitting the borders of the strike zone as defined in the rule book and as validated by MLB’s own radar tracking system. Failure to grant those pitches as strikes early in the game forces Kaz to do two things: pitch closer to the hitter’s sweet spot in order to obtain a favorable call, and a need to create unusually greater movement on those pitches he might use to fool a hitter. From this, there are immediate consequences which were realized. We saw highly successful hitting from the Yankees, and miserable control of the slider from Kaz. The leverage power, over time, are runners on base, runners scoring, high pitch counts. By the 4th and 5th innings, everything has broken down. Further extending this line of thinking, what might have been the impact over time on Sabathia as he was forced to pitch in more high-stress situations?

While we will never know, and this is all water under the bridge, it is conceivable that the correct result for last night might have been 2-1 Yankees, or 3-1 Yankees. When so, then while it is true that the umps are not the reason that the Angels lost, they are the reason that the Angels lost by 9 runs. And if you accept that possibility, must you not then accept that it is an unacceptable impact on the game, and that umpiring has gotten to the point where it needs immediate remediation?

You too can be a baseball media analyst! Just don't allow your need to be wrong in public to get in the way of your ignorance.

by Stirrups on Oct 21, 2009 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions  

Did you hear the sound recording during the game?
GK goes into calls on the basepaths. He introduces totally valid thought experiments for consideration. I am willing to add balls/strikes calls to the dialog. Kaz was hitting the borders of the strike zone as defined in the rule book and as validated by MLB’s own radar tracking system.

The home plate ump was mic’d and he had a conversation with Scioscia, telling him he (the ump) couldn’t see part of the plate because of the way Napoli was setting up. It was subsequent to that we saw Napoli on one knee for the receiving.

Call me old-fashioned, but I thought the umps just worked around the problem of standing behind another human being—I didn’t know it was the responsibility of the catcher to rearrange how he sets up in order to placate the ump and maybe get a more favorable call.

"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon

by George Kaplan on Oct 21, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

I was directed to that tape last night.

Here is where I came back to the thread with my reaction.

You too can be a baseball media analyst! Just don't allow your need to be wrong in public to get in the way of your ignorance.

by Stirrups on Oct 21, 2009 1:56 PM PDT up reply actions  

I personally don't care

about the “human element” argument.

I’ve said it before, but umpiring exists in professional baseball, not because we cherish and love the human element behind it, but because of the year of the invention of the damn sport. There was no alternative in the 19th century but to have these men make the calls.

Go ahead and rewrite history, and postpone baseball’s invention until 2009, and watch how baffled people would be by the idea of letting a couple of human beings be responsible for making the calls.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 21, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions  

Not entirely true, when you think about it.

If you accept that Cricket was the foundation for the invention of Baseball, you must admit that we intentionally dropped a rather empirical method for determining pitch accuracy. Mechanical in nature, the wicket is just a set of sticks in the ground. If we had retained that concept, a pitched ball is a strike if it hits those sticks to the extent that a bail is knocked off or the batter flails the bat and does not result in a fair ball hit.

Very simple. Very objective. Very available. And very proven.

By removing the concept of the wicket and replacing that with a human judge, we introduced a human element despite the fact that there was an alternative.

You too can be a baseball media analyst! Just don't allow your need to be wrong in public to get in the way of your ignorance.

by Stirrups on Oct 21, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions  

Except

that relies on us believing that wickets should be a part of the game at all.

I’m not entirely sure the foundation of baseball lies in cricket…and even if it does, umpires are used for far more purposes than merely determining strikes and balls. Furthermore, even if it is a derivation of cricket, the nature of baseball and its necessity for other positions on the field make the wickets a rather unappealing component…one whose removal was first and foremost to change the nature of the game, rather than a removal for the sake of bringing in a human.

Either way, I would maintain that the human element, by and large, exists because of lack of alternatives. Wickets present a physical impediment to playing the game in the same way. Slow-motion cameras, computer pitch-trackers, and other such devices do not.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 21, 2009 2:01 PM PDT up reply actions  

It is quite true that the game would be much different than we know it today.

But then, because of that, we would not be having this exact same discussion, and we would not be aware of the problems we are faced with now.

But the fact remains that, at that time, we DID have viable alternatives to human judgement for determining the results of some number of actions on the field. And, considering the rudimentary skills and equipment and playing surfaces of that time, these alternatives would not have had a gargantuan impact on what that game was at that time.

Now, all this does not alter your basic premise: that TODAY’S game and TODAY’s standard of play is clearly beyond any alternatives that existed in the early 1800’s.

You too can be a baseball media analyst! Just don't allow your need to be wrong in public to get in the way of your ignorance.

by Stirrups on Oct 21, 2009 2:21 PM PDT up reply actions  

But calls like safe/out

and fair/foul, and home run/not-home-run were beyond any technological grasp of the time…short of constructing 200 foot walls directly on the fair/foul lines and the like.

It stands to reason that the people of the day (hell, even cricket had judges/officials back then) did not choose to use humans because of their love and appreciation for the integration of the human element into their sport’s officiating. There simply wasn’t a way to play the game inside a set of rules without having “neutral” third parties make calls on plays where the result would otherwise be left to the hands of the competing teams.

The neutral third parties of today (computers and cameras) were not in existence back then. It stands well to reason that, had they been available, they would have been used. Can anyone say this for certain? Of course not. But I reject that officials back then were used for any purpose other than they were, invariably, needed as the best alternative to a sport’s overall officiating. Like I said, most solutions (aside from wickets, which I also doubt were added for the express purpose of neutral officiating, so much as it was a product of its existence) to removing humans at the time would have been counter-intuitive. We could have erected massive walls down the lines so balls could never land foul…painted the entire area in front of and behind an outfield wall different colors to know where a ball had hit during play, etc, in order to remove officials as much as possible…but in the end, technology wasn’t on their side back then. And if they wanted to play any reasonable game at the time, human officials WOULD be needed at some point. So they were added.

We have now reached a time where there presence is no longer required. Thank you for your service as we worked to eradicate you. Good day.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 21, 2009 2:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

I don't have an archaic solution for safe/out, but

for fair/foul the solution is easy. The field merely has gullies outside the foul lines, such that any ball that rolls into foul territory makes an obvious and immediate direction change towards the middle of the gully. And fly balls that impact the gully in foul territory clearly bounces significantly foul. The gullies need not be so deep that they threaten the welfare of hte fielders.

This, of course, supports your point inasmuch as trenching a field comes at a real and permanent cost, both financially and as an impact to the landscape. Just borrowing a couple of people and assigning them watch duty is cheaper, and far more flexible.

But, going forward, I reject the notion that computers or cameras are neutral. Unless you are willing to accept some radical changes to the game as it stands today, which would parallel the kinds of differences that would have been madated back in the 1800’s by using mechanical solutions such as wickets. I know this last statement is cryptic. It deserves its own series of threads where the 100’s of hours of thought time I have accumulated over the years trying to work through this application can come forth in bite sized pieces for others to discuss. I am waiting for the offseason to launch these. Hopefully, the offseason remains a long way off.

You too can be a baseball media analyst! Just don't allow your need to be wrong in public to get in the way of your ignorance.

by Stirrups on Oct 21, 2009 8:10 PM PDT up reply actions  

Trenching a field

also serves as a real and immediate danger to anyone who wants to attempt to make a play on one.

I can only imagine the broken ankles and torn hamstrings.

I can see a computer program written in a manner that doesn’t encompass a lot of necessary data for strike zones…but for all other calls (fair/foul, safe/out, etc.) how is a camera not team-neutral though? I mean, just in watching last night’s game it’s clear that cameras are far more accurate than an officiating crew in terms of getting calls right. Rarely, if ever, (in the modern multi-angle, HD quality-video era) does a call come around in which no camera has a definitive angle…at least in baseball.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 21, 2009 8:51 PM PDT up reply actions  

What decides when a replay is "definitive"?

Don’t say “who”. You must state “what”.

“Who” merely transfers the act of judgement from a man on the field to a man or woman behind a video monitor. Your stated objective is to make a camera team-neutral but if your camera merely presents information to a human reviewer, you remain stuck hoping for a team-neutral judge. You have transferred the liability of human subjectivity from one human to another. The “other” human is potentially better armed, but there is no assurance that the “other” human is more competent, more neutral, more rigorous with respect to the rule book, etc. And the “other” human is probably safely esconced away from challenge or scrutiny.

Nope. To make the camera truly team neutral, you must automate the analysis of the information that the camera captures. AND, you must ensure that the technique used to perform the analysis can withstand deep and transparent scrutiny for being accurate and neutral.

You too can be a baseball media analyst! Just don't allow your need to be wrong in public to get in the way of your ignorance.

by Stirrups on Oct 21, 2009 10:33 PM PDT up reply actions  

I can answer 'who'

because by submission to a neutral body (I use the term neutral lightly, but unlike spur-of-the-moment, bang-bang calls, there is far less room for subconscious fear of a fanbase to play a role) who is sight-unseen allows for less intimidation as well as less error.

There is objective criteria by which calls are right and wrong. This is true on the field, or on a camera. The only difference is, denial is near impossible when presented with the latter. No one looks at a still image of Denkinger’s blown call and says “yup, he was safe.” No one. It’s impossible to do so. Furthermore, by removing the umpires from the field of play, not only does the intimidation factor go out the window along with the just-plain-mistaken factor, but you also gain a considerable edge: people not making the call in real time have the benefit of not having to save face and go into Eddings-denial mode. The number one reason an umpire doesn’t admit to something after faced with proof of being wrong is always going to be stubborn denial. No more.

When I use the word “neutral” this is not to say that human beings are neutral beings. Of course they aren’t, it goes without saying. But if you wish me to believe that a panel of however-many people (3-5 or whatever) can’t sit down in a room and watch a still frame of a replay and come to the correct conclusion damn near 100% of the time (again, this is nullifying strike-ball calls, a separate category in themselves), then I think that’s insane.

My point was never to remove human beings from the game entirely…it’s impossible if for no other reason than everything and anything you can add to the game that can measure such things has some human somewhere along the line ‘attached’ to it. It’s that the near-guarantee of a proper call via one medium (cameras and computers) is infinitely more correct than its counterpart (humans making split-second calls on the field). Not a single infamously blown call in any of these playoff games thus far this season would have been incorrectly ruled upon given our capable technologies. And as far as I can see, the only excuses for not bringing that technology into play are just that…excuses.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 21, 2009 11:30 PM PDT up reply actions  

Oh. Ok then.

When you write “My point was never to remove human beings from the game entirely…” I no longer have any disagreement with you. We agree.

I was reacting to your earlier post at 10/21/2009, 12:53 PM (on my display) when you wrote “There was no alternative in the 19th century but to have…men make the calls.” and “…watch how baffled people would be by the idea of letting…human beings be responsible for making…calls”. In that post, my takeaway was that you did not like the idea of humans making calls, even teams of humans. This is what most comments on this site (and others) often imply, and I consistently believe those comments to be incorrect.

I do not disagree with the position of human judgement in this latter post of yours. This latter post may disagree with your earlier post, but that is between you and…uh…well, you. I am not going to get in the way.

So, going forward, I would like to respond to a couple of your newest declarative statements. First, you write “But if you wish me to believe that a panel of however-many people (3-5 or whatever) can’t sit down in a room and watch a still frame of a replay and come to the correct conclusion damn near 100% of the time…then I think that’s insane.” I would direct you to NFL replays. They ARE judged by a panel. The panel is comprised of experts. They have access to the best technology available. They have more practical, real-world, experience on this than anybody. And what is their position? Their position is that the limitations of the panel process and the technology are so severe that they will only overturn a decision made on the field if the video information is conclusive. That means that there are times when that information is not conclusive. If you are a football fan, I think you would agree with me that we have observed numerous times when the information was inconclusive, and sat through even more frequent times when the video frame-by-frame reviews were watched over and over and over again while being debated by the announcing crew, and still subject to some level of disagreement. Yes, it is an insane world.

Next, you write “It’s that the near-guarantee of a proper call via one medium (cameras and computers) is infinitely more correct than its counterpart (humans making split-second calls on the field).” I believe that this is overstating the case. Unecessarily hyperbolic. Yes, it it probable that application of technology can render a more correct judgement, but it is not a guarantee (see, again, NFL). Understanding that brings us to one of the important distillations of the decision to go to technology that lies in front of us: we will be asked to weigh the value of that probability for a better judgement against the certainty of the costs of implementation, administration, and impact on the game. This, I believe, is a decision-making process well beyond the critical thinking skills of Bud Selig.

You too can be a baseball media analyst! Just don't allow your need to be wrong in public to get in the way of your ignorance.

by Stirrups on Oct 22, 2009 4:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

I would argue though

that inherent in football’s rules and gameplay are a number of events that make it harder to determine calls.

Massive herds of colliding human bodies…crossing imaginary lines that are not extrapolated across the entire length of the field, determining what constitutes a fumble/catch, etc. are all objectively measurable in words, but not in practice. What constitutes possession of a ball, or a long enough time of possession, is a contentious and fairly subjective criteria that baseball, generally speaking, lacks.

It is far more rare that a safe/out play comes along where a single frame can’t prove one side conclusively correct. Diving catches/traps in the outfield almost always have the same as well. I don’t recall ever seeing (certainly not in the HD-era) a fair/foul ball call that was inconclusive in replays. My hyperbole aside, of all the poor calls this postseason (the Bucknor calls against the Sox, Utley hitting the ball off his leg, the fair ball by Mauer, the Swisher pick-off/tag-up, and the double-play that wasn’t with Cano and Posada) had 100% conclusive video evidence disputing the outcome. Small sample size (our blog’s favorite phrase), of course, but I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that video replay would see damn near (or more) than a 90% reduction in non-strike/ball calls being made erroneously. And for me…it’s more than enough, particularly since the implementation cost would not be particularly high…the cameras are generally already there.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 22, 2009 9:45 PM PDT up reply actions  

Conversely, with the NFL:

- the field of play that the cameras must cover is smaller…
- the playing area itself is pecisely uniform…
- the immediate area surrounded the field of play is rigorously controlled (fan interference, for example, is not something to contend with)…

…so the sightlines are far more easily defined and controlled.

Meanwhile:
- each stadium only has to wire and prep for 8 regular games a season…

- the NFL has 3 networks providing 16 cameras for every game, and paying the NFL for the privilege…

…so the NFL has far more ability to invest heavily in thoroughness.

And, of course, the NFL rule book is tiny compared to the encyclopedia set that is the MLB rule book, which greatly limits the issues and items that need to be viewed and reviewed.

And yet (again), the NFL still struggles. Mightily.

Bottom line: I do believe that technology would improve MLB judgements. But I do not believe that it is as simple, nor as effective, nor as affordable, nor as transparent to the game, as everybody dreams it shall be.

You too can be a baseball media analyst! Just don't allow your need to be wrong in public to get in the way of your ignorance.

by Stirrups on Oct 22, 2009 10:29 PM PDT up reply actions  

Using just the cameras already available from the networks

every single call I mentioned above was immediately available for reversible review.

Yes, NFL fields are more easily and uniformly covered than an MLB field. But if we’re assigning numeric values, it’s not like NFL’s simplicity is a ‘10’ and MLB a ‘1.’ In all my years of watching games, particularly since the advent of HD, I can’t recall more than MAYBE a small handful of times in any game (post or regular season) where a controversial call didn’t have an angle from SOME camera that made it quite clear, or clear enough to a degree that reversibility could be done.

Arguments concerning game length (not that you made them) are absurd to me. No replay would take as long as Scioscia’s million year jog to second base and million year defeated return…nor would it be as futile.

Arguments concerning cost are likely exaggerated. More equipment would be necessary, but the cameras already present for most games provide the vast majority of necessary coverage.

Effectiveness remains to be see. I can understand someone thinking it wouldn’t be terribly effective. Personally, based on anecdotal memories from this postseason and countless regular season games, television cameras alone have provided quite sufficient reversible evidence for damn near 100% of all questionable calls. But I’m sure it would also take the advent of such a system to suddenly realize how many more calls out there can’t be determined with simple T.V. cameras.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 22, 2009 11:23 PM PDT up reply actions  

Don't limit your implementation to what would be necessary to correct past examples.

Any new system must be able to track and identify, from at least two angles, EVERY possible play throughout the ENTIRE field.

Baseball, uniquely, is a sport that covers tremendous territory extremely fast. The cameras used to cover the close calls at 1B, 2B and 3B might not necessarily be sufficient to conclusively show a true result for fly balls over the foul poles.

You too can be a baseball media analyst! Just don't allow your need to be wrong in public to get in the way of your ignorance.

by Stirrups on Oct 23, 2009 10:30 AM PDT up reply actions  

That's why I said that almost all future calls could be made

and not ALL of them.

for all the ‘past results are not indicative of future returns,’ I would actually say that in this case, it’s pretty fair to use a sample size of several tens of thousands of games in the past to know that the cameras currently present will catch most necessary details. using the past here is even rather necessary: it shows where the holes, if any, are in coverage, and where the location is of the most likely missed calls. i wasn’t saying everything could be handled by what we have now…merely that it would take fairly little extra to cover whatever final holes there are, i.e. balls over a foul pole. i think the cost aspect is being exaggerated. greatly.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 23, 2009 11:33 AM PDT up reply actions  

George, I agree with you completely

Including the part about formerly opposing the use of instant replay and now supporting it.

I don’t think there is any question that the accuracy of officiating has deteriorated over the past decade. One may argue that we are merely more aware of mistakes because of the advance of technology, and this is certainly true with balls and strikes, but most of the bad calls we have been discussing are detectable with the naked eye. Do you have an opinion regarding why this is so?

What we've got can't be bought

by rspencer on Oct 22, 2009 12:36 AM PDT up reply actions  

My guess

The collective bargaining agreement with the Umpire’s Union doesn’t mandate that the best umpires—and the union does keep subjective stats on all umps during the season—work the postseason. Instead, they are drawn at random from the total pool. Furthermore, no umpire can be made to work two postseason series in succession, adding to the likelihood a more mediocre umpire will get a slot.

This can be solved only through more bargaining, and Mike Port needs to be out front on this issue.

"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon

by George Kaplan on Oct 22, 2009 3:12 AM PDT up reply actions  

They do get selected on merit, we're told...

But if you cannot work more than one series in a postseason and you cannot work two World Series’ in a row, then what you end up with very strongly resembles a rotation system where even weak umpires can be forced to be inserted into a postseason game.

I agree the Umpire’s collective bargaining agreement needs to see a lot of changes.

It could happen! Let's do this for Nick Adenhart, Courtney Stewart, and Henry Pearson.

by AlanFalcon on Oct 22, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions  

Makes perfect sense

In a related story, Doug Mientkiewicz will play 1B for the Phillies because Ryan Howard appeared last year.

"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon

by George Kaplan on Oct 22, 2009 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions  

Hopefully

some photos and video from this post season are brought to the bargaining table.

*Ade-Rock 34*

by TheTypingFiend on Oct 22, 2009 6:12 PM PDT up reply actions  

I put no faith in Mike Port

I remember him too well from his days with the Angels.

What we've got can't be bought

by rspencer on Oct 23, 2009 2:39 AM PDT up reply actions  

Wrong.

Our pitchers had to throw more pitches. That is almost always detrimental to a team’s chance of winning. Also, the general feeling that the umpires cannot be trusted is undoubtedly difficult for the players to ignore as they try to continue playing the game. No one really knows to what degree that effects them.

No matter what happens from here on, it has been a great season.

by Rally Manatee on Oct 21, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

great post.

What do you need a fancy suit for, Charlie, you ain't got no job to wear it to.

by clover_black on Oct 20, 2009 11:23 PM PDT reply actions  

I missed most of the game

… why didn’t Scoscia ask the 3rd base umpire to check with one of the other 5 umpires who may have had a good view of the play? And if he did, did none of the other umpires see that both runners were off the base?
vr, Xei

by Xeifrank on Oct 20, 2009 11:28 PM PDT reply actions  

It's a given

that a manager doesn’t need to ask for help from other umpires…umpires are supposed to be ‘man enough’ to seek help, when needed. Furthermore, if another umpire saw otherwise, he should be able to step forward without Scioscia asking for it.

The fact that McClelland has basically ADMITTED he did not watch that portion of the play, and yet did not seek help is a huge indictment of the state of professional officiating: he did not see it, he says he did not see it, but he does not seek assistance to verify his call is correct. He doesn’t even have the benefit of this being a bang-bang play where he has to make a quick, decisive, call where his eyes may deceive him. It goes a long way in showing how much regard the umpires have for being right, so much as they have a regard for getting paid for their night’s work.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 20, 2009 11:36 PM PDT up reply actions  

McClelland is the crew chief...

so I don’t think Scioscia can ask anyone else. He was already talking with the chief, so the conversation ended there. You are right, McClelland should have admitted on the field that he missed the call and asked for a second opinion from another ump.

I love this team.

by Downing Rules on Oct 20, 2009 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

He is admitting all of it on ESPN now. Just saw it, how pathetic.

The 2009 Pregame Picks Winner and Iron Man of Halos Heaven.com

by 44FAN on Oct 20, 2009 11:39 PM PDT up reply actions  

Gee. Swell. That makes everything all better.

You too can be a baseball media analyst! Just don't allow your need to be wrong in public to get in the way of your ignorance.

by Stirrups on Oct 20, 2009 11:42 PM PDT up reply actions  

Hahaha

Well, I mean…at least it’s more than Eddings has still given us, 4 years later.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 20, 2009 11:44 PM PDT up reply actions  

This

This right here is the heart of the issue. There is absolutely no way that one of the other 5 umpires didn’t see the play clearly. If such a thing happened in the the NFL, the other umpire would SPRINT to the man on the scene to correct the call. In MLB they sit quietly with their hands in their pockets. Lack of instant replay isn’t the problem, the umpiring culture is.

by leftwing on Oct 21, 2009 7:35 AM PDT up reply actions  

He probably did,

and the asshole probably refused.

No matter what happens from here on, it has been a great season.

by Rally Manatee on Oct 21, 2009 5:14 PM PDT up reply actions  

This NY Times article has even more explanation from McClelland

and some interesting reaction from mark Teixeira and Mike Napoli.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/21/sports/baseball/21umps.html?ref=sports

The 2009 Pregame Picks Winner and Iron Man of Halos Heaven.com

by 44FAN on Oct 20, 2009 11:35 PM PDT reply actions  

He incorrectly identifies the Angels as being on the wrong end of Bucknor's call

and even though he’s right that Aybar was off second on the phantom tag double play, that was a bullshit call as well, and every fan in baseball agrees.

I’m all for banning the ‘neighborhood’ tags of second…but the time and place to enforce it for the 2nd time in major league history ain’t the 10th inning of an ALCS game.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 20, 2009 11:43 PM PDT up reply actions  

It was a good review of post season umpire miss calls none the less.

The 2009 Pregame Picks Winner and Iron Man of Halos Heaven.com

by 44FAN on Oct 20, 2009 11:46 PM PDT up reply actions  

True but

Appears they blew the call of Jeter the other day and when they talk about the Twins / Yankees series they fail to mention that OC was hit by a pitch with the bases loaded that would have ended the game right there………Napoli but it perfect with his comments as well though…..

Willie Mays Aikens is FREeeeeeeee

by Angel Aviator on Oct 21, 2009 12:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

Exactly
I’m all for banning the ‘neighborhood’ tags of second…but the time and place to enforce it for the 2nd time in major league history ain’t the 10th inning of an ALCS game.

I think the neighborhood play may be essential to keeping 2Bs and SSs from getting severe injuries, and the play should be discretionary, just as the umpire will make a discretionary call if the runner is within reason of the bag in his slide to break up a double play.

But no umpire should get religion and decide to call a play differently with the game on the line in late innings than it was called earlier in the game, just as an ump needs to have a consistent strike zone throughout the game, regardless of how right or wrong his interpretation may be. Making a change at the (literal) 11th hour is just plain wrong.

"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon

by George Kaplan on Oct 21, 2009 9:59 AM PDT up reply actions  

I love that the the concluding line of this article is that

the umps at least got ONE call correct!

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Oct 21, 2009 6:08 AM PDT up reply actions  

they should also crack down on randy marsh

no im not talking about the stan’s dad
im talking about the ump….hes terrible
just ask tiger fans what they think

Because when I think of Boris Diaw, I think of Beethoven and the age of Romanticism....

by shaqfor3 on Oct 20, 2009 11:35 PM PDT reply actions  

Every time I've heard that name this postseason

I just have hilarious visions of the South Park character.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 20, 2009 11:37 PM PDT up reply actions  

i know haha

Because when I think of Boris Diaw, I think of Beethoven and the age of Romanticism....

by shaqfor3 on Oct 20, 2009 11:38 PM PDT up reply actions  

That explanation by McClelland is actually hysterical!

I hadn’t seen that. It’s sad at the same time…..but it’s very funny.

Part of me doesn’t really believe his explanation either.

I’m not sure what to think, but that is very funny.

by Jack Frost on Oct 20, 2009 11:55 PM PDT up reply actions  

I think “in his heart” means he saw the replay of the pickoff on the big screen and knew Swisher belonged in the dugout. And if that’s the case, that’s the best case study for the use of replay I’ve seen yet — Swisher was walking around with Tim ready to call him out at the first opportunity, but nobody knew about it?! Just get the right call at second base, on a replay if you must, and play baseball.

Let's do this for Nick Adenhart, Courtney Stewart, and Henry Pearson.

by AlanFalcon on Oct 21, 2009 9:02 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

Me three.

I guess we just have to respect his AUTHORITAH!!!!

[yeah, I know that’s Cartman]

Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch

by red floyd on Oct 21, 2009 9:33 AM PDT up reply actions  

MLB.com's TOP PLAYS archive...

had a short on “MLB TONIGHT discusses controversial calls in the ALCS.” Now it has been removed.

I love this team.

by Downing Rules on Oct 21, 2009 12:10 AM PDT reply actions  

Wow, I’m surprised. It was basically a scathing review of the bad calls, with all of the commentators pretending that they were really praising McClelland.

Let's do this for Nick Adenhart, Courtney Stewart, and Henry Pearson.

by AlanFalcon on Oct 21, 2009 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions  

I like Napoli's quote

It shows he has a solid head on his shoulder’s. You can’t let one missed call ruin a game for you

by halofan1 on Oct 21, 2009 12:31 AM PDT reply actions  

It also plays to the reality

that he is the pitcher’s biggest advocate when dealing with the game’s human element.

*Ade-Rock 34*

by TheTypingFiend on Oct 21, 2009 5:13 PM PDT up reply actions  

What was his quote? I didn't see it.

No matter what happens from here on, it has been a great season.

by Rally Manatee on Oct 21, 2009 5:18 PM PDT up reply actions  

who needs the eyes

In my heart, Chone Figgins destroys lefties and is the greatest playoff performer with more than 100 at bats. Juan Rivera has the highest batting average over the last 2 months and is deserving of every start and placement in the meat of the order. Tori Hunter is backing up his big talk with a huge postseason in the outfield, basepaths, and batter’s box. Bobby Abreu is a great table setter against lefties and is never afraid to punish a get me over fastball. Bulger isn’t hurt and is always ready for back to back game action. Vladdy would bat 4th on every playoff team, did you see that huge homerun off andy pettite and that single off papelbon … HE IS BACK! No changes need to be made to the lineup or bullpen selections, we will win with what we got and how Scioscia managed the regular season. Words like continuity, groupings, get it going, bat handling, chemistry, working on some things, and capability all adorn the outside of my heart, while the inside pumps the life fluid that allows me to turn the page.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Oct 21, 2009 12:53 AM PDT reply actions  

i agree the call was horrendous

but your bitterness doesn’t make sense because the call had nothing to do with the outcome. angels lost by a bunch.

by revived0103 on Oct 21, 2009 1:17 AM PDT reply actions  

Have enough shitty calls go against you, and it becomes mental

Don’t give a certain pitcher a low strike for a few innings, then explain that his catcher is the problem … after mentally affecting a starting pitcher and taking away a big weapon of his. Squeeze a pitcher a bit, have some horrible calls go against his fielders, and then tell me he’s just going to keep performing as if nothing has happened just because those runners dont happen to score. In my heart, I don’t believe it, for real.

I’m not blaming the umpires, but don’t think for a second that just because the error doesn’t amount to a run that it doesn’t have a negative affect on the team.

This entire game wasn’t a blowout either. 1 hit could have made it a 3 run deficit heading into the late innings, and I doubt Matt Palmer would have been allowed to turn it into a spring training bp session.

by Quinlan's Goofy Swing on Oct 21, 2009 1:34 AM PDT up reply actions   1 recs

I actually saw Yankees fans complaining

both during and after the game, that they were cost a run by the tag-up play. Further saying that they were screwed that inning, because the call that ‘went against us’ didn’t cost anyone a run, but the call against them did.

It might make those individuals the dumbest people to ever breathe.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 21, 2009 1:51 AM PDT up reply actions  

Find me a spot where I blamed the outcome of the game on the call

I challenge you to.

And then, after that, find me a spot where I specifically said this entry had nothing to do with complaints about the outcome of the game.

You WILL find that.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 21, 2009 1:49 AM PDT up reply actions  

So a bad call has to REALLY screw a team before it matters?

That’s like saying it doesn’t matter if a judge sends an innocent man to jail if he gets out on parole some time later.

These guys are getting paid to do this. If they can no longer perform their duties effectively, they need to be dragged behind the barn and shot.

No matter what happens from here on, it has been a great season.

by Rally Manatee on Oct 21, 2009 5:26 PM PDT up reply actions  

Accurate

The primary legitimate issue with the umpiring is the QUANTITY of missed calls, which does unfavorably impact the QUALITY of the game.

The Angels lost the game on their own.

Caseys got it right.

by mustard_man on Oct 21, 2009 4:11 AM PDT reply actions  

I too agree that the officiating didn't cost us this game.

But it certainly had its impact. The fact that our team lost by nine runs didn’t really get impacted by the plate calling.

But it still sucks to see the “human element” make so many errors in the game.

RIP Nick Adenhart 4/9/09

I blog about the Angels at The Diamond Aces

by Jay Cal on Oct 21, 2009 8:29 AM PDT up reply actions  

It didn't cost us a single run

No Hitting = Lose

RIP Nick. We will miss you!

by KingF15h on Oct 21, 2009 4:39 AM PDT reply actions  

So if a burglar breaks in to your house and steals all your money

the police are allowed to say the burglar didn’t do it because they didn’t think he broke in? If a bank raises your mortgage interest rate to 85%, it’s OK because when you sue them the judge will simply say he didn’t think the bank did that?

Your argument is completely wrong. The calls were wrong. The strikezone for Kaczmir was HIGHLY questionable. But, there is nothing anyone can do because ’that’s baseball.’

Bullshit.

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Oct 21, 2009 6:24 AM PDT up reply actions  

Perfect world:

Cano says, “You know what, I was out. If McLellan makes the wrong call against them, the next one might go against us so I’m going to correct his mistake.” Cano then walks back to the dugout.

What would McLellan do then?

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Oct 21, 2009 6:26 AM PDT reply actions  

almost sounds like that's what McLellan would have tried to do

had there been instant replay. He’s says he doesn’t believe the replay so he guess he would have tried to throw out, what, the camera?

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Oct 21, 2009 8:40 AM PDT up reply actions  

This made my day, thanks.

Let's do this for Nick Adenhart, Courtney Stewart, and Henry Pearson.

by AlanFalcon on Oct 21, 2009 9:06 AM PDT up reply actions  

Yeah, i meant that play.

I probably should have clarified that a little better. I just like the visual of him walking over to the camera and yelling, “You’re outta here!”

Captain, there are doubt's...

by Match Day 5 on Oct 21, 2009 12:19 PM PDT up reply actions  

McClelland should've annouced his resignation during the press conference.

That would’ve been the right thing to do and would’ve sent an earthquake throughout the baseball umpiring community.

by ttsec on Oct 21, 2009 8:04 AM PDT reply actions  

Maybe

if umpires were held accountable and punished for bad calls like this we’d have better officiating.

*Ade-Rock 34*

by TheTypingFiend on Oct 21, 2009 5:30 PM PDT reply actions  

Careful

one of them Irish union cronies from Boston may break yer legs for talkin’ like that.

by Caseys Kiss of Death on Oct 21, 2009 8:54 PM PDT up reply actions  

"Irish union?"

That suggests organizational skills.

"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon

by George Kaplan on Oct 22, 2009 3:09 AM PDT up reply actions  

anticipation?

That’s pure bullshit. Did not Aybar get called for not stepping on second on a double play. Should’nt the umpire have anticipated that he would step on it and call the runner out? McLelland needs to be suspended from umpiring for the 2010 season.

by Baylorsgroove on Oct 22, 2009 1:07 AM PDT reply actions  

McClelland to be replaced in ALCS

His replacement will be Enrico Pallazzo.

Aside from the improvement in competence, we won’t notice a difference.

"He's not a Rhodes Scholar to begin with''~Theo Epstein, talking about Papelbon

by George Kaplan on Oct 22, 2009 7:26 AM PDT reply actions  

Uh...... Strike?

Angels baseball. We do what we must, because we can -- HaloDutch

by red floyd on Oct 22, 2009 9:10 AM PDT up reply actions  

Comments For This Post Are Closed


User Tools

Halos Heaven is the Number #1 Angels Fan Blog according to QUANTCAST. Our Angels Fan Site is YOUR Angels Fan Community!

FanPosts

Community blog posts and discussion.

Recommended FanPosts

Avatar_small
The Angels and Why You Became a Fan

Recent FanPosts

+ New FanPost All FanPosts >


Leaders of the Free World

4323_1105939621665_1622022962_290465_5300842_n_small Rev Halofan

Mostinterstingman_small cupie

Tn96_small WiHaloFan

Whammy10_small blast21dave

Fearless Crew

N1222371_8709_small scottnak

Halos2_small Stirrups

Anarangels_small Mayheminthehood

Cant-tell-if-trolling-or-just-very-stupid_small linkbruin

Avatar_small rghan

Alternate-club-logo-no-highlight1_small RexTookMyStash