Elsa - Getty Images
Darth Wendelstedt immediately prior to force-choking Ron Gardenhire.
Just incredible. The winning run in not one, but two of today's games scored immediately following a rather obviously blown call. What else is there to say? "This aggression will not stand, man!" Unfortunately, one of those calls went in favor of the Yankees, so we won't get the popular outrage we would have had if, say, the Yankees had lost last night after Greg Golson's catch that was ruled not a catch. Now we're looking at an ALCS match-up I wish both teams would lose.
The Rays have really let me down. They are undoubtedly the better team in this series, but sometimes you just lose two consecutive games. It happens. The five-game series structure means they are pretty much dead-to-rights now. They could win three in a row, although they most probably won't. Seriously though, two hits and just one walk off C.J. Wilson? That's what I would expect from the Angels lineup. Might as well have just given us a postseason berth.
How could this happen? Buck Martinez said it was because the Rays weren't "seeing the ball well." I don't think you could invent a more meaningless cliché if you hired a marketing firm and paid them to think up an empty slogan that would appeal to idiot sportscasters. I'd like to ask Buck why batters see the ball well some times and not others. Here, I'll even brainstorm the possible answers with him:
Joe Maddon had better fix these problems quickly.
Yankees 5, Twins 2 (Yankees lead series 2-0)
Yeah, so who said that officiating errors always even out in the end? I'd like to hogtie that person and leave them for a frothing band of Minnesotans, who will presumably kill him or her with kindness. The bad call last night altered the win probability in the Twins' favor by 3%. The bad call tonight (an obvious third strike to Lance Berkman just before his RBI double) improved the Yankees' chance to win by TWEN-TY FIVE PER-CENT. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but wasn't Joe Mauer robbed of an extra-inning double in Game 2 of the ALDS last year? No, I do not need to buy a few rolls of tin foil, I don't...
The polyester carpet that wears Craig Sager said before the game that Twins tried some new things before the game to bury their past with the Yankees. Like Ron Gardenhire, who literally buried the jersey he wore the night before. Orlando Hudson went with steak instead of his usual chicken dinner. The team as a whole got together to make a burnt offering to invoke the protection of Sitala, the Hindu goddess of smallpox. Evidently the Yankees paid her off too. Man, I'm so bummed for the Twins right now. After what Angels fans experienced at the hands of the Red Sox from 1986 to 2008, I can almost feel their pain.
Did anyone else wonder how the Giants got nearly all the 40,000 people in the stands to pay attention to this game at the same time? That just does not square with my experiences at AT&T Park, which I've always thought of as a giant Starbucks with a $40 cover charge. Barry Bonds was the only thing that could take Giants fans away from their Blackberries, but maybe the Giants gave their fans something even more distracting to do by giving out orange hankies. Tim Lincecum is really something else, though. Not even Farmville or E-Trade can compete with what he did on the mound tonight.
Tonight we had the classic paradox: what happens when an infinitely strong man tries to lift an infinitely heavy stone? The Giants don't hit, but they can pitch. The Braves don't pitch, but they can hit. Neither team won, but the second-base umpire clearly lost. According to WPA, Buster Posey's bogus stolen base caused about a 5% shift in win probability. Significant, but not necessarily game-altering. However, WPA has no idea who was pitching. Some jackass on the TBS postgame tried to sell me the claim that no one could have made that call correctly, even after seeing it five times over in slow motion. No, dipshit. I made the call correctly even watching a grainy TV feed on my computer screen, in real-time, while grading papers, because THE TV CAMERA HAD A BETTER ANGLE ON THE PLAY THAN THE UMPIRE. I guess Buster did say he was safe, so he must have been safe.
I swear the umpire's union is fluffing these broadcast morons to spin them some positive PR at times like this. Except that even Ron Darling was dismayed by that pitch to Berkman. Must be time to bust his kneecaps.
1 recs | 60 comments
that braves giants game should be in the 23rd inning right now
you stole that from me MLB
Quinlan's Goofy Swing - October 7, 2010
Subop
You always have a way to take what’s on my mind and make it sound infinitely better than what my brain could possibly put together.
But seriously, this postseason already looks like a big heapin’ pile of SUCK (amongst other things and adjectives as well)!
blast21dave - October 8, 2010
So, Yankees vs. Phillies in the WS, right?
Fox and the talk radio folks will be happy, because they won’t have to pretend to care about what happens outside of the Northeast.
The_Question - October 8, 2010
I'm rooting for the Giants at this point
I figured I would root for the California team . . .
As for a Yankee-Texas ALCS matchup . . . kill me now.
AndyHogan14 - October 8, 2010
At least the Ducks season is beginning
Something else to watch other than seeing which hated team makes it to the WS.
The_Question - October 8, 2010
Enough is enough!
Enough with the outrageously crappy postseason officiating already. I realize that blown calls are a part of baseball, but—well, I’m no statistician, but it seems to me that the incidence of egregiously blown calls is much higher in October than in any other month, with considerably fewer games played. And isn’t it interesting how the tendency of the blown calls always seems to favor the larger markets?
Whatever the cause of this phenomenon—conspiracy, ineptitude, or something else—it erodes fan confidence in the integrity of the game. Well, at least I can say that erodes my confidence. It’s fine to say, “Well, the team who suffered from the blown call just should’ve played better,” but that’s really an argument that only the wronged team itself can make justly; for anyone else to say it sounds an awful lot like they are simply blaming the victim.
What with the blown calls and questionable scheduling, to say nothing of the short first series, I have gotten to the point where I lend absolutely no credence to anything that happens in the postseason, for there are too many obstacles to the best teams’ progressing. At best, the result is essentially random, at worst it is pre-ordained, and who can tell the difference?
I’m beyond suggesting remedies beyond the essential first one: get rid of Selig, and re-institute the old standard of the independent Commissioner. Otherwise, maybe it is time for Congress to re-evaluate the anti-trust exemption.
rspencer - October 8, 2010
Incidence seems about the same to me. I believe their union just signed a contract as well. After you get rid of Selig, who is going to hire the commissioner?
Salty - October 8, 2010
Who hired Kenesaw Mountain Landis?
Bowie Kuhn? Fay Vincent?
rspencer - October 8, 2010
I think Bud was elected by the owners
Suboptimal - October 8, 2010
That's rspencer's point.
Salty doesn’t seem to realize that the owners ALWAYS choose the commissioner.
red floyd - October 8, 2010
Thanks, red
Before Selig, they always tried to pick an accomplished person from outside of baseball. For example: Fay Vincent, if I recall correctly, was president of a large university before he was Commissioner. Selig was a departure from this policy, the owner of the Brewers when he was chosen.
Apparently, it makes a difference.
rspencer - October 8, 2010
Oops
That was Bartlett Giamatti who was a university president beforehand. Vincent came from Coca-Cola. And while I’m at it, Bowie Kuhn was a bit of a departure from the “independent” policy too, having been the owners’ legal representative for 20 years previous.
rspencer - October 8, 2010
But... it gives the losing team's fans an outside element to complain about.
Rather than become frustrated or disillusioned with their own team which could lead to fewer visits to the ballpark in the following year.
[Just an alternate perspective, not truly my own]
AlanFalcon - October 8, 2010
So screw playoffs. Let's go back to one playoff team from each league, and only the WS!
Ah, the good old days, when the pennant race was all Summer long, escalating as we moved into Fall.
Stirrups - October 8, 2010
I really like the poll
angelsownredsux - October 8, 2010
Hey, Halladay is awesome. Lincecum just threw a great game.
See kids. Smoke the green buds and win Cy Young awards. Touch the powders and pills and your balls will shrivel up.
Nice write up Sub-op. Of course I chose the first option.
Wally's World - October 8, 2010
Victor Rojas's take, just posted to his Facebook:
“Umpiring is a difficult job but until there’s an evaluation process with real ramifications, the shoddiness will continue. MLB players have to perform at a certain level otherwise they get sent back down to the minor leagues. Why isn’t that the case with umpires? If you’re good, you get to stay…if you’re not, then go get better. Motivation is getting lost.”
Zoe Necrosis - October 8, 2010
Any system that allows Country Joe to continue to grab the spotlight is broken
The_Question - October 8, 2010
Yeah.
I’d rather hear Moby Grape!
rspencer - October 8, 2010
As long as it's not the Yankees.
Texas – Ok only to put it to all those East Coast biased ESPNers
Tampa Bay – Ok for Maddon
Minnesota – Ok for the underdog
SF – Ok for Cali
Atlanta = Ok for Bobby Cox and the nice story it’d be
Phillie = Ok cuz damn that’s just a helluva team
Cincy – Ok cuz nobody saw it coming (ain’t happening tho)
NY – NOT OK. Say no to pompous entitlement
Monkeyspanked - October 8, 2010
I'd probably say texas is the dog, since their payroll is almost half of the twins.
Minnesota will never shake that “awww, they’re from the midwest, scrappy, and cutsey pootsye” label that everyone slaps on them.
Maybe that’s a good thing?
clover_black - October 8, 2010
that's cool.
I’d be ok with those, for those reasons.
cath619 - October 8, 2010
Also
I wouldn’t be heart broken for Vladdy to get a ring (although it should have a halo on it).
Teixeira Who? - October 8, 2010
I am on the verge
of just having to say, fuck it, I’m rooting for whichever team wins the NL pennant. Rangers-Yankees, aaaaaagggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhh!
Brody - October 8, 2010
That IS what I'm saying
Commander_Nate - October 8, 2010
Until Selig dies...
…and then we can get full access to instant replay and the MLB joins the modern era of professional sports, just get used to it.
It’s not going to change…
RedFog - October 8, 2010
Positive thinking.
Yankees – Rangers, one of those assholes are going to get eliminated.
My guess, yanks will have no answer to the rangers offense.
clover_black - October 8, 2010
And one is guaranteed to move on...
RedFog - October 8, 2010
to get smashed by the phillies...
clover_black - October 8, 2010
Ugh
It better not be Phillies/Yankees again in the World Series.
ryanfea - October 8, 2010
You're kidding, right?
Money-grubbing as they might be, the core of U-Haul, A-Fraud and Swiss Family Robinson is probably the best one in these playoffs.
Commander_Nate - October 8, 2010
This yankee team isn't very good.
Rangers have enough pop to take advantage of their weak SP, and can hold them down with a strong pen.
Im shocked MN is rolling over like this, I just don’t see the rangers doing the same.
clover_black - October 8, 2010
Rangers were only the 5th best hitting team in the AL
And the 6th worst pitching team. Yankees had the top offense and the 4th worst pitching, but Girardi will cover up that weakness by just having CC and Rivera pitch every inning in the ALCS. Even if they aren’t as good as last year, they’re still better than the Rangers.
Suboptimal - October 8, 2010
damnit subopt, stop throwing facts at me.
clover_black - October 8, 2010
Well
The comforting fact is that this is baseball, where inferior teams win out in seven-game series with high frequency. Although that would just put the Rangers in the World Series, which really isn’t a comfort, but whatever.
Suboptimal - October 8, 2010
Im pulling for the yankees, if the ALCS plays out like that.
My trump card against any ranger fan is an ALCS and WS victory… If we don’t have that, what point is there to living?
clover_black - October 8, 2010
This ^^^
red floyd - October 8, 2010
I actually have no problem with Buck's comment.
“Seeing the ball”, in the context of a baseball hitter recognizing the what/when/where of a pitched baseball, is a phrase that refers to a complex process. It is not a binary act such as “Are the lights on or are the lights off?”.
That process includes, among a host of other things, scouting of the opposing pitchers and setting up the hitters when they step into the box. A failure at just such a point in the overall process can have a negative impact across a broad range of offensive players.
I don’t make the presumption that Buck felt that he knew all the places where the process had broken down. He was just making a professional, informed, observation that he was seeing the evidence of a breakdown. And until he would ever be able to conduct a deep dive investigation and analysis, including interviews on all sides, that was the best that we are going to get. Just because we are not going to get a conclusion does not mean that we should be protected from an observation.
Stirrups - October 8, 2010
I disagree
I think it’s nonsense made to sound sensible. The statement “Evan Longoria is not hitting well because he’s not seeing the ball well” is a tautology. If you asked Buck how he knows that Evan Longoria is not seeing the ball well, he would say it’s because he’s not hitting well (or some circuitous remark about “having good at-bats” that would eventually reduce to the same thing). It restates the same observation in different terms.
Of course pitch recognition is a skill. Expecting a certain pitch in a certain situation is also a skill developed through experience, as well as a strategic decision informed by scouting and observation. These are things big league hitters do all the time. They wouldn’t be in the big leagues otherwise. But this can’t be what “seeing the ball well” actually means to Buck. Why would Evan Longoria “see the ball well” at some times and not others? Why does the pitch recognition he’s spent years cultivating abandon him on occasion? Is he not getting the same scouting reports as his teammates?
These guys are the best in the world at hitting a round thing with a piece of lumber. I can’t believe that they could suddenly lose their ability to judge a pitch trajectory just as much as I can’t believe that I could suddenly forget how to drive.
Suboptimal - October 8, 2010
I can’t believe that they could suddenly lose their ability to judge a pitch trajectory just as much as I can’t believe that I could suddenly forget how to drive.
Brandon Wood says “Hello”
red floyd - October 8, 2010
I understand what you are saying about tautology. But in this case tautology does not have to be a bad thing.
Buck: “Evan Longoria did not achieve the sum of 4 because he did not add 2 plus 2 correctly.”
Sub: “How do you know that Evan Longoria did not add 2 plus 2 correctly?”
Buck: “Because he did not achieve the sum of 4.”
If Buck knows that the process in front of Evan is to sum 2 plus 2, and if Buck is convinced that the only possible outcome of adding 2 plus 2 is 4, then what Buck says makes perfect sense. Tautology as a universal truth.
Meanwhile…what magic insight or special rule book do you have that enables you to delve into Buck’s psyche and make the declarative statement: But this can’t be what "seeing the ball well" actually means to Buck? Really? How do you know what Buck actually means? Am I missing further conversation or context here?
To answer your question: Why would Evan Longoria "see the ball well" at some times and not others? Why does the pitch recognition he’s spent years cultivating abandon him on occasion?
Uh…because he is human? Because players, like umps, are not robots? Because the game is played in an imperfect, ever changing, natural and unnatural environment against other humans of constantly changing behavior and skills? Certainly your experience of real world baseball has recognized the reality of slumps, off nights, extraordinarily good performances, extraordinarily bad performances, and altogether unexpected performances? Why is it beyond your comprehension that players can do something well some times and not do that same thing well at other times? Even across long periods of time, unlike one game or two games now in this series, these things have happened. Steve Sax had spent a lifetime honing his skill for throwing baseball at a target and hitting it. He suddenly lost the ability to throw to first with any confidence. He went an entire season in his own circle of hell. And then he reverted back to norm for the balance of his career. Those are examples that defy your statements and occur over large numbers.
So, back to the deal here. Making this totally up out of thin air, imagine if the Rays got a new scouting report that told them to keep an eye on Ian Kinsler. Kinsler is looking into the catcher and picking up pitch selection and location. If Kinsler drops his glove below his knees when he squats, it means the pitch probably is a sinker outside to a righty. So Longoria goes up to bat with that bit of data in his inventory of things to process as he visualizes the coming pitch. Perhaps in Martinez’ nomenclature, it’s all now part of the process Longoria is going through as he “sees the pitch”. So Kinsler lowers his glove during Wilson’s windup. Longoria parks “sinker away” front and center, and preps for that. But the report is wrong. Longoria lost a fraction of a second making an extra adjustment as he recognizes the pitch for what it really is. And that fraction is costly. Longoria fail, because process is fail. Process now equals NOT. “Seeing the pitch” equals process, so “NOT seeing the pitch” equals Process NOT. Therefore, “Longoria is NOT seeing the pitch.”
Stirrups - October 8, 2010
Logic fail.
What sense did Longoria use to “..recognize the pitch for what it really is…”? I’d have to say from your argument that it was the sense of vision, the one with which we…see things. Like baseballs. Which means Longoria has no problem “seeing the ball well”. Even to the point of his sense of vision overcoming his expectations.
sothball - October 8, 2010
No no no.
Go back to my opening comment.
“"Seeing the ball", in the context of a baseball hitter recognizing the what/when/where of a pitched baseball, is a phrase that refers to a complex process”
The human act of visual reception is merely one very important component to the entire process. What a hitter goes through in their time at bat includes far more than
photons bouncing off a baseball and entering the human pupil. And I am granting Martinez the benefit of doubt in his statement. I am giving him the leeway to include the entire process and not just .8 seconds of light and shadow.
Stirrups - October 8, 2010
Make the process as complex as you want.
The heart of “seeing” is what you visual sensations report to your brain above and beyond the any other component of the process. In your example, Longoria’s vision worked just fine.
You want to give this level of reason to Buck Martinez’ statement? Really? That’s imputing a level of intelligence to the guy that Spock would admire. But, OK, let’s say you are correct. Didn’t Spock usually take an extra moment to explain his logical deductions to the lesser intelligent around him? I’d think a broadcaster – the one guy hired over hundreds of other applicants – has been hired for his communication skills to help explain his pronouncements.
If Martinez really means “seeing the ball” beyond the simple dictionary definition, it would be helpful to to provide that greater intended context and to make it a teachable moment. If he doesn’t provide that greater context, then it’s left to us lesser mortals to conclude he is once again spouting useless, meaningless, and most of all, non-contextualized cliches.
sothball - October 9, 2010
Well,why don't you just ask him?
The guys is sitting in an announcers booth injecting commentary into a game in motion in real time, during an era where the modern viewers reject the Scully-like time spent to expound upon an idea. Probably not the best venue to satisfy the curious. Especially if Martinez is not even aware of the any general curiosity.
My takeaway from such a comment is not such large intellectual leap. Martinez did this himself tens of thousands of times in his life so it is second nature to him, and nothing of extraordinary calculations.
My takeaway is that the batter takes the sum of his experience, checks for signs from the coaches, adds that to his awareness of the complex variables that compose the situation at hand, surveys the field for defensive information, goes through his ritual to focus and visualize the immediate future, and comes away with a small number of visual templates that are the possibilities he is anticipating will happen. Those are all he is thinking about, and nothing else matters at that moment. He is looking towards the pitcher and preparing to fixate on release points in space, visualizing a limited number of scenarios.
As soon as the pitcher begins to come forward in his windup, the hitter is now fixating on real vision and comparing those to his visualization templates. As he sees what is going on he uses his skills of physical vision to recognize and identify reality. If reality matches his primary visualization, he needs not make any physical adjustment and if he physically executes perfectly, he has a great chance for extreme success.
Everything that happens after starting the process of focus and visualization, leading up to triggering the mechanical, physical, reaction, is part of the overall process of “seeing the ball”. For a guy like Martinez, who might not be the brightest crayon in the box, it is all instinctive and assumed. He might not even know that a lay person desires a greater understanding. That he says it without reinforcment does not make his original statement bullshit. That he says it without explanation is certainly a failure to communicate an idea that might be important to some viewers/listeners, but it might also be a learned behavior reinforced by his producers in order to get to the next pitch or next commercial or any of the 5 other guys wich mics that the need time for their sound bites during a playoff broadcast.
Stirrups - October 9, 2010
Call Buck? Um...no.
Where do you get the idea “…modern viewers reject Scully-like time spent to expound upon an idea..”? I’m not sure you’re correct. If so, I’m not sure what came first, the attention-deficit listeners or the vacuous broadcasters. Either way, I trust the general public will accept quality over garbage if given the choice. If Buck had actually formulated acondensed explanation of “vision” as you described above, it would draw listeners, not repel them. If he can’t or doesn’t, he’s failed.
Like many broadcasters today, Buck repeats what most accept as worthless cliches (people’s exhibit #1; Mark Gubicza). Perhaps they really CAN channel their inner Vulcan. If they have the ability to explain their cliches in more detail but don’t, then it’s more than fair to conclude he/they are simply filling the quiet moments with time-worn drivel.
sothball - October 9, 2010
I get my idea about modern viewers by reading the comments here.
Sadly.
Stirrups - October 9, 2010
Not hypothesizing about Buck Martinez's psyche
Buck is really just the goat here; he’s not the originator of the cliché. “Seeing the ball” has been setting off my bullshit detector for years, and I don’t see anything wrong with deducing its meaning from context. It’s always employed as an explanans for the proposition “X is/is not hitting well because…,” not as a technical term with specific reference to an actual baseball practice like pre-game scouting. It’s the same as saying “Fernando Rodney pitches well when he stays within his mechanics,” which as far as I can tell, means something like “Fernando Rodney pitches well when he does those things that pitchers do when they pitch well.” There’s no added semantic content.
Now of course there are variable skills involved in seeing and hitting a baseball. I was perhaps too assertive to claim that players “never” spontaneously lose some ability, since Rick Ankiel seems to be a potent counter-example. But this just doesn’t happen very often. Most slumps and streaks are random variations. Your abilities don’t have to change to have an 0-for-20. What big league hitters do really pushes the limits of human perception; they’re going to get fooled with a certain frequency and they’ll be “right on” a pitch with a certain frequency. Fluctuations don’t necessarily reflect a shift in an underlying skill.
Suboptimal - October 8, 2010
*uck Martinez
3rd Echelon - October 8, 2010
This statement is relevant to my interests.
RexTookMyStash - October 8, 2010
Wow. I just watched that Berkman at bat
What complete effin chicken shit. I’m just about to boycott the rest of the playoffs as to not lend their precious tv ratings.
Then again, I like watching baseball so much I’m still going to watch anyways because I’m an idiot, and a fan of satan.
RexTookMyStash - October 8, 2010
Great writeup
But one nitpick. The Braves have very good pitching (3rd in MLB) and pretty awful hitting right now, given the injuries to Chipper Jones and Martin Prado. I mean – Omar Infante, Conrad, Alex Gonzalez, Rick Ankiel – that’s pretty pathetic.
So really, it’s just which hitting can suck less against solid pitching.
Gorbachav5 - October 8, 2010
Oh wow.
http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/we-know-hunter-wendelstedt-was-bad-last-night-but-how-bad-was-he.php
“Pretty darn bad! Jeff Passan — citing Brooks Baseball’s chart of last night’s game — notes that Wendelstedt missed 31 ball-strike calls on Thursday. In the two other games, the umps missed 21 calls combined.”
~MMP~ - October 8, 2010
That's just terrible.
And what’s the recourse here? A boycott of baseball?
Fire the umps? Robots?
Not going to happen but the least bud ‘idiot’ selig can do is institute IR.
RexTookMyStash - October 8, 2010
But we can't have computers calling balls and strikes!
A stupid computer (like the one that wrote Moneyball) might get too many calls right! Imagine, a baseball game in which the strike zone is called according to the rule book – can baseball survive such a horror?!?
The_Question - October 8, 2010
Suboptimal - October 8, 2010
Of course Selig wants
to get rid of Tampa and Minnesota. IMO, those 2 have the highest chance of getting to the WS in the AL. We need to have another MFY vs. Philly showdown again for money.
phoenix15 - October 8, 2010
i cant live with an appearance of Ian Kinsler in a World Series
i hate the Rangers more than the Yanks
Angels_48 - October 8, 2010
We really should when you think about it
They’re in our playoff spot.
Commander_Nate - October 8, 2010
I'm with you on this.
RexTookMyStash - October 8, 2010
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of Halos Heaven to post a comment.