THE San Francisco Giants Blog

Screwed? Or Screwed up?

Posted in Uncategorized by Flavor on April 2, 2014

So, I’ll preface this by saying I only saw the reviewed play at first base 2 times. My thoughts were, “Eh, he looks out to me.” But there is no way I would say that he was out “conclusively.” When they froze the frame, it was unclear, at least to me, if the runner was touching the bag or not. It looked like maybe by a hair he was not. But it was also a little fuzzy….

If you hire Shawon Dunston to be your replay coordinator you just tell him one thing: Be fucking SURE you’re right. That’s it. Arguing a call is no longer “go out there, kick some dirt around and wander back to the dugout.” We just say, “let’s look at the tape.”

Dunston should wear this one. Hard.

The KNBR guys were steaming mad this morning about the “botched” replay at first base. Last night on The Wrap, Krukow said “Hey New York, wake up and pee! The whole world is on fire!!!!!” I have  no idea what that means.

From my eye, the tape on the play we challenged wasn’t conclusive. Had we had the challenge on the play at the plate, we would have won that easily.

In my opinion, all scoring plays in baseball should be reviewable…….

And none of this should excuse Cain who pitched like crap. When you entrust a 127 million dollar man (or whatever he is) with a 4 run lead, that’s supposed to be game over.

 

About these ads

78 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. twinfan1 said, on April 2, 2014 at 8:09 am

    There was one replay angle that was not inconclusive, he was out. There was no problem with Dunston’s decision. It appears that the problem is with some technologically challenged dunderheads in NY who seem to think that if one the of angles is inconclusive then they all are inconclusive.
    All of the above is just my opinion, needless to say.

    • Alleykat said, on April 2, 2014 at 8:29 am

      Agree with Twin, I could see it clear as day on the angle I saw he was out. Maybe cause Belt plays in front of the bag for the sweep tag, and the freakin ump was movin forward to get in position and was blocked out,he took the easy way out and called him safe, just BS…

  2. willedav said, on April 2, 2014 at 8:42 am

    Hey, that was gonna be the third out, it’s pretty important, no more pitches would have been thrown that inning by Cain. That it turned out to be ultimately critical, and maybe not even as obvious as the play at the plate that surely would have been overturned on replay, is unfortunate.
    Perez almost had that guy at the plate too, throw was right there. Like to see him get a start.

  3. unca_chuck said, on April 2, 2014 at 8:46 am

    Seeing as this was day one, you’re going to bitch at Dunston? Fine, but the Giants got 5 outs that inning. Hard to even pin the fuckup on Cain. It took WAY too long (5 mins) to make the decision in the first place. The stupid thing about the replay is, if you get it right, you get another one? Why? Cuz you are a good manager? Let’s tie our fuckups to your ability to challenge them. They either replay close plays or be done with it. We’ve seen time and again how fucked up the NFL process is. The difference is, getting a break during a football game is usually a good thing for everyone out there. For a pitcher it isn’t. The one thing the NFL sort of got right was to review all scoring plays. They do it nominally in the background, but the call has to be made that there was a score. Review all close plays at the plate. And fuck the New York angle. All you need is a guy in the box with the replay feeds. 30 seconds should be enough time. Christ. Overkill that didn’t get the job done right anyway.

    If the intent is to get the calls right, then do that. If it’s to dangle challenges like candy treats, then this will be as fucked up as not having it in the first place.

    And the idiots in the studio said that the play was too insignificant to challenge in the first place. Huh? An out is insignificant? The 3rd out of the inning? In what world? Stupid shit.

    • wswin said, on April 2, 2014 at 9:05 am

      totally agree chuck. the idea is to get the call right, not to be rewarded with another challenge if you get the first one right.

      • wswin said, on April 2, 2014 at 9:06 am

        which btw it was…one angle showed clearly picked off.

  4. unca_chuck said, on April 2, 2014 at 8:48 am

    Perez was a deer in the headlights at the plate. Couldn’t put the ball in play with runners on 2nd and 3rd (k), and top of the 9th with a runner in scoring position (k).

  5. Flavor said, on April 2, 2014 at 9:14 am

    like I said, I only saw the replay twice and it was from just one angle. Maybe it was the angle you guys are saying was the inconclusive one.

  6. Chipower9 said, on April 2, 2014 at 9:17 am

    Agree on all points. I don’t think you can hang this on Cain. He was sub-par, but he did keep them in the game (3 ER). Guitierrz look hagard. Hope that changes.

    Regarding the replays, I think ALL close plays at the plate should be reviewed. And if they are going to give the team a set number, then I think three is more realistic. One? Fuck that. With three, I think if the challenge is wrong, then the team gets dinged their next review (makes them think about using the replays…similar to football).

    Anyway, the current system, as is sucks. Hopefully they make some tweaks to make this right.

    And I think they need to get more camera angles. I just do not recall seeing very many good angles on the pick-off play.

    I agree with Willie – would love to see Perez get a start. I still think the kid has big potential, but he does need to learn to get the bat off his fucking shoulder in key situations (two outs, ducks on the pond). If you go down hacking, so be it…but to go down without a cut…just totally wrong in that situation.

    Looking forward to seeing Hudson tonight. Shake it off and get ‘em tonight, Gigantes.

  7. zumiee said, on April 2, 2014 at 9:22 am

    Some of the stuff about replay will drive us crazy. It’s the first season. I’m willing to give MLB the benefit of the doubt and see how baseball tweaks it as seasons go on. It may look somewhat different in a couple of seasons.
    I like Chuck’s idea of all close plays at the plate being reviewed. It makes good sense. Maybe baseball will take a page from the NFL on that.

  8. stickman said, on April 2, 2014 at 9:26 am

    Plenty this morning to bitch, barf and bellyache about last night’s game, so i’ll be perverse and stick to just one bad decision out of several. With Scutaro out of the picture, that two-hole gets filled on a temp basis. Bochy played the old right-left matchup angle and opted for Pence over Belt. Now i’ll grant that Arias or Crawford would have been a bit of a reach as well and anyone else essentially impossible (imagine Panda or Morse in that role).

    But now consider the Very Most Reverend Popeye Underpants Pence. Makes me more than merely pensive. I’ll tell you that much. Try to imagine a more unsuitable candidate than perhaps the purest hacker we have, a guy who starts half his plate appearances with an automatic two strike count. Hitting in his normal fifth or sixth slot, with ducks on the pond and a pitcher sweating little green B-B’s Pence contrarily is the picture of perfect peril.

    Every manager has hunches and each and every one makes bad decisions from time to time. Though stubborn as the classical hog on ice, BB15 may have learned something about disrupting his lineup by patchwork miscasting. In that first frame BB9 produced wonderfully batting lower in the lineup, so we cannot automatically say he should have hit second. Perhaps Crawdaddy would have been a better choice than Pence. Used to batting in front of the pitcher and having established a good record previously in the two-hole, at least he would not have gone up there hacking.

    Oh well, 160 to go and it could hardly be argued that last night was not the perfect opportunity to learn from one’s mistakes. And that goes for the entire team.

  9. zumiee said, on April 2, 2014 at 9:26 am

    Actually, my biggest beef with it all last night is how long it took to review the play at firstbase. That was just too long. The pitcher ends up trying to stay loose on the mound.
    The very next pitch after the long delay, of course, was when Cain gave up the double that brought the close play at the plate. Coincidence? Maybe.

  10. zumiee said, on April 2, 2014 at 9:31 am

    Just my opinion, too, but I never saw the conclusive angle at first that others are talking about. I saw the base blocking one angle, and Belt’s shoe blocking the other angle.
    And why does the “replay review” guy for the team even have to be a coach? All you need is someone who can see video and make a judgment on whether it’s conclusive or not. You need someone with a lawyer’s mentality, who’s trying to evaluate whether the evidence would hold up in court. It just screams for someone more nerdy than a coach.

    • unca_chuck said, on April 2, 2014 at 9:34 am

      And you are the nerd for the job?

      • zumiee said, on April 2, 2014 at 9:51 am

        Oh, I can get pretty nerdy when I have to. Hire me, Boch! :)

  11. unca_chuck said, on April 2, 2014 at 9:38 am

    Vida Blue brought that up post-game. If you are going to do replay, get more cameras out there. A good idea. The first view was the best. It wasn’t 100% obvious, but it was about 95% obvious. You see the tag on the arm before the arm reaches 1st base.

  12. unca_chuck said, on April 2, 2014 at 9:47 am

    And yeah, I think Crawfish should be in the 2 hole. He’ll get better pitches to hit there. Lefty or righty.

  13. Macdog said, on April 2, 2014 at 10:29 am

    I didn’t see the play live, and only now just watched the replay. From three angles, it’s hard to tell whether Parra was out — maybe the one from RF is the closest to showing he might’ve been out — but I can see the replay reviewer deciding he needs more proof to overturn the call.

    http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/6479266/v31753577

    BTW, what the hell was going on with the passed ball in the first place? It looks like Buster got crossed up.

  14. Macdog said, on April 2, 2014 at 10:45 am

    The manager we all like to pick on, Ron Washington, had a somewhat similar situation as Bochy last night. There was a close play with a Phillies runner being called safe sliding into third, and Washington went out to discuss the call, but got word from the dugout that it wasn’t worth a challenge.

    That same inning, the Phils’ Revere was called safe on a pickoff attempt at 2nd. This time Washington challenged, the call was reversed and Revere was called out.

    But as Chuck mentioned earlier about the pitchers, the 2:18 delay probably didn’t help Rangers pitcher Perez, who then gave up a single to Byrd and an RBI double to Howard.

  15. snarkk said, on April 2, 2014 at 10:59 am

    IMO this is a natural process to figure out how this replay process is going to work. It’s new, so people have to experience how it works first, then they’ll figure out what’s likely to get overturned, and what isn’t. Meanwhile, they should immediately change the rules so that every scoring play is reviewed, period. Not reviewable, but reviewed by guys in NY. Most scoring is not disputed, a runner from second scores standing up on a single to center, etc. So, reviewing the close ones with tags is no big deal — scoring plays should not be subject to this silly one and done limitation. And, increase the manager’s protest reviews to max 3 in the first six innings, whether you lose or win each protest. Having one only if your first protest fails is just dumb. Replay is good only if you’re right? So, the next play is wrong and you have to live with it? That’s just stoopid and defeats the purpose of the goal of replay, which is to get the calls right…

    • zumiee said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:07 am

      I agree with a lot of that, but I’m not sold on more challenges for the managers. At some point, flow of the game has to be an issue.

      • Chipower9 said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:10 am

        I think the number needs to be expanded, but it also needs to be limited (keeping the flow of the game in mind). That is why I suggested three per team. And if you challenge and lose the challenge, you also get dinged an additional challenge. This method does two things.

        1) It limits the number of challenges per team, and I think three could be adequate (certainly a hell of a lot better than ONE).
        2) With teams knowing that if they challenge and lose, they lose not only that but an additonal challenge, it forces the team to really look hard at whether or not the challenge is viable.

    • Chipower9 said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:13 am

      Agree that this would be a good progression/change. Similar to my suggestion with a minor difference in the team losing an additional challenge if their challenge is not successful.

  16. Chipower9 said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:08 am

    With all I and many have said, no system is EVER perfect. This is new, and as Zume said, I am willing to give it the benefit of the doubt…IF they eventually make some changes.

    And there needs to be changes.

    I stated earlier too that they need more cameras/angles.
    Also think that if you are only going to have one review per team (and a second if they get their challenge right)…you may as well scrap the system. I don’t see the current model as viable.

    ALL plays at the play should be reviewable, regardless of how many challenges each team gets and has used.

    Regardless, let’s get back on the good foot and get another win tonight. Go Hudson – Go Giants!

  17. unca_chuck said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:15 am

    Here’s what the Flan-man had to say about replay. This was on Flan’s facebook page. He has since taken it down:

    Replay in the sacred game stinks. Tonight, Boch was out on the field 4 times and doesn’t even argue, you wait around for someone in New York no one knows to make a long distance decision, who is he? Is he paid by gamblers? Then because you challenge the crew are you are wrong, the guy behind the plate screws you on not only balls and strikes, but on the game deciding play at the plate because he knows you’re out of challenges…you lose rhythm, timing, the beauty, the human element, until the other side of the human element comes out….how about if the umpires are bad, you fire them. That’s what I deal with in my job on the field. Sorry, I am venting. Review them all or none of them, or home runs or plays at the plate only… I love Tony LaRussa, Joe Torre, and the gods of the game but when I retire, or get fired, I’m going surfing, fishing, taking my airstream up to Alaska with my lady. I’m not going to find a way to put my fingerprints on a sacred game that has worked fine for over 130 years…

    as Turko says – “it ain’t right”

    • dirtnrocksnomo said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:19 am

      I can agree with what he’s saying but I still think replay should be used in baseball. It just needs to be implemented better. Not saying I know the answer but the interest should be in getting it right. All the major sports have adopted replay in some fashion now and I think the NFL does it best but they’re a lot more progressive about rule changes etc in the NFL.

    • Chico said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:26 am

      You beat me to it Chuck ;)

    • snarkk said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:57 am

      Sorry, but just because he’s a third base coach, doesn’t mean Flan’s right. He’s entitled to his opinion. I agree with him that they should review all or none, and it should be all. As far as the sacred game, I love the tradition of it. But, things change. DH anyone? They lowered the mound 6 friggin’ inches in 1969, that was a HUGE deal for how the game is actually played. So, it ain’t THAT sacred, and umps sure are not. Besides, getting calls wrong is SACRED? Bullshit…

  18. dirtnrocksnomo said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:15 am

    Totally agree on review of all scoring plays and chuck’s point about on site review. Add another umpire and have them in the booth or in a special room with a picture of Bud on the wall or whatever. They can rub up the game balls between reviews.

  19. James said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:25 am

    The “conclusive” angle from the third base camera was too low to see if Belt’s glove actually made contact with the runner before his hand touched the bag, IMO.

    • twinfan1 said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:36 am

      In the interest of peace and harmony, I will just repeat that the mantra that I have adopted at home:
      “I’m sure that you are right”

  20. twinfan1 said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:26 am

    This is sad.

    http://tinyurl.com/mt2ebex

    • Chico said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:28 am

      I saw that too. The auction states that he bought an additional ring (on top of the ring issued to him). Still, I hope he’s not that hard up for money.

  21. blade3colorado said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:29 am

    Just my opinion – Fuck replay reviews. For about 150 years, umpires sufficed.

    In other words, add instant replay to the list of time-wasters that have slowed the modern game to a crawl: Pitchers who treat every pitch like it’s the most important ever thrown; batters who can’t bat without stepping out of the box, adjusting batting gloves, spitting, scratching, digging in, and then doing it all again before the next pitch; catchers who can’t give signs without getting them first from the manager; and the endless parade of relief pitchers, all of whom need to warm up on the mound, despite the fact they’ve already warmed up in the bullpen.

    More important, as I said last night – “Ironically, the balls and strikes that instant replay fails to address have a far larger impact on the outcome of a given game than any particular fair/foul or safe/out call. Replay cannot address these calls—indeed, challenging individual balls and strikes would slow games to a crawl.”

    In short, you’re barking up the wrong tree if you think instant replay reviews will resolve much of anything.

    • Chico said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:32 am

      Spot-on, imo.

  22. snarkk said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:31 am

    It’s early. Replay in some form is here to stay, and it should be, because as we saw last night, these umps screw up, a lot. Studies show 20% of the close calls as first are wrong. That’s a lot. And, the night before last there were 5 protested calls, and all 5 were overturned in favor of the protester team, all in fairly short order. So, it does work. I don’t understand people that want a game that continues on after a botched call that is unfair to one side, and though it can be fixed, they’re too impatient to have the game played fairly. If a surgeon is closing you up, do you want him to hurry to get you to ICU, and miss cauterizing the last bleeder? You get to ICU 5 minutes sooner, then die of internal bleeding…

    • blade3colorado said, on April 2, 2014 at 12:00 pm

      Snarkk, we’re not playing doctor. Wait! I use to like that game when I was a child, especially with my next door nei . . . umm, never mind. :-)

      • Chipower9 said, on April 2, 2014 at 2:44 pm

        LMAO. Been there. Done that! ;-)

  23. Bozo said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:35 am

    Some of the issues with the new replay rule were brought to MLBs attention during the ST tryout of the thing. MLB refused to change anything. So be it, now its wait until the Owners meeting to tweak anything. The thing that irked me the most last night was how MLB and the Umps were able to wash their hands of the blown call, by pointing at Bochy’s lost challenge. The whole argument that the guy at the plate would have been out if Bochy hadn’t used his challenge is, in my opinion, bullshit, he should have been called out The point of replay was to get it right and save the arguments. Well, last night did neither. If MLB wants to do it right, they need to add an additional ump to every crew who sits in the booth and monitors the close plays (the umpire’s union would approve this in a second). No manager challenge and no arguments. A reversal call would be relayed to the crew chief or HP ump and the video then plays on the scoreboard. Otherwise I say get rid of it, then at the very least, the Umps will have to answer to blown calls.

  24. twinfan1 said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:38 am

    The replay is not going away, and if it did we should not be able to see the replays either.

  25. snarkk said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:49 am

    I vaguely remember that Raiders/Denver AFC champ game in Denver 1978, when I was still a Raiders fan. Rob Lyttle fumbled the ball on the goal line, Oakland recovered. But, the refs gave the ball back to Denver, saying he lost the ball only after forward motion stopped. Horribly bogus call. Replay would clearly have shown the fumble as soon as he got hit, and Oakland would have kept the ball, and likely won the game to go onto the Super Bowl. That botched call decided a champ game, and was a big piece of moving towards using replay review in sports. Was that just fine that the call was wrong, giving the game to the undeserving team, just to keep the flow of the game going?…

    http://blogs.denverpost.com/broncos/2013/09/22/broncos-lytle/21828/

  26. twinfan1 said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:50 am

    Enjoy game 3 and always remember this: without umpires, everybody would be safe.Or out. With no rhyme or reason to it. Uh, wait a minute, that’s kinda how it is.
    Maybe we should try waitresses..see ya.

    • snarkk said, on April 2, 2014 at 12:05 pm

      I’m up for waitresses as umps. They’d do just as well, with a week of training, tops. Must be dressed in Hooter’s outfits, though. That will help maintain the “sacred” aspects of the game, along with the sacred dot racing and endless holy commercials on the jumbotron…

      • twinfan1 said, on April 2, 2014 at 12:34 pm

        At least they’d be in shape, as it were. I think that “well, I couldn’t see below my belly” is a darn poor excuse for missing a call.

      • Chipower9 said, on April 2, 2014 at 2:48 pm

        Yes…umpire waitresses in corsets, garter belts, stockings, etc.

      • dirtnrocksnomo said, on April 2, 2014 at 3:02 pm

        I’d settle for the MelkMaids get up.

  27. zumiee said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:51 am

    Flannery’s Facebook quote is exactly why I would rather not have a coach as the replay person. The replay person needs to be totally devoid of emotion as they’re watching it, in order to give the best advice to the manager.

    • snarkk said, on April 2, 2014 at 11:52 am

      I nominate Nippy for Giants replay reviewer. Get him a satellite link up to the van…

  28. blade3colorado said, on April 2, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    I didn’t say this, but I wish I had (LA Times) . . .

    “Well, allow me to go all old-school on you, bunkie: Blown calls are often the best part of the game. What would you rather see: The umpire waiting for some unseen overlord to check a call, or an enraged Earl Weaver kicking dirt on him? Or Lou Piniella chucking second base into center field?

    In fact, I would argue that instant replay is the devil’s tool; it’s the Antichrist of sports. Americans hate lawyers, yet we’re allowing instant replay to turn our games into courtroom dramas.

    Look at football: Endless reviews of plays from endless angles; announcers babbling about the need for “incontrovertible visual evidence” for a call to be overturned; games dragging on and on. Worse, fans now argue not about a blown call on the field but about a blown call from the replay official! Refereeing has become like those Russian dolls; just when you think you’ve got it, you don’t.

    I say enough is enough. Why the quixotic quest for “fairness” and “getting it right”? What’s so wrong with getting it wrong?”

    • dirtnrocksnomo said, on April 2, 2014 at 12:29 pm

      Come on blade this is America we only get the big things wrong like the war on drugs, Iraq that sort of thing.

      • blade3colorado said, on April 2, 2014 at 12:40 pm

        Yeah, and what the government charges me for taxes.

      • dirtnrocksnomo said, on April 2, 2014 at 2:36 pm

        You and Mitt Romney :)

  29. dirtnrocksnomo said, on April 2, 2014 at 12:27 pm

    I’m sure you guys mentioned this yesterday but looks like Wilson went on the DL

  30. zumiee said, on April 2, 2014 at 12:43 pm

    I love Hanley Ramirez’s .067 batting average after 4 games. Obviously, it’ll go up, but for the moment, pretty funny.

  31. zumiee said, on April 2, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    Harang pitched well for the Braves today. The Braves may weather their storm better than a lot of folks had thought. Freeman seems primed for an MVP run. And, of course, they have the best closer in the game. The big questions will be their starting rotation, and what to do regarding BJ Upton.

  32. unca_chuck said, on April 2, 2014 at 1:41 pm

    I’m with thw clown. Either get it right or get rid of it. Challenges shouldn’t be part ot the strategy of the game. It should be used to fix the problem.

  33. Flavor said, on April 2, 2014 at 2:01 pm

    A’s challenged a call at home plate today that was totally not conclusive and they lost it. In the 2nd inning. The review took nearly 5 minutes. Lame-O

    • snarkk said, on April 2, 2014 at 2:16 pm

      Agreed. There has to be some sort of reasonable rule. If you can’t figure it out in two minutes, it ain’t happening. The teams will eventually get the hang of what’s overturnable, and what isn’t so they don’t protest stuff that’s too vague to overturn. Meanwhile, Shawn Dunston actually has something to do now. Not saying he’ll be good at it…

      • Chico said, on April 2, 2014 at 3:49 pm

        The Tribe pitcher looked impatient waiting for the call to come through. Can’t blame him at all.

  34. snarkk said, on April 2, 2014 at 2:59 pm

    Kruk will now have a new mini-career, like his spewing of knowledge about umps’ strike zones. Now, he’ll figure out who’s on duty in the NYC replay review center (wherever that is) for the game, and give us chapter and verse about how detailed they are, how fuzzy the vids can be and they’ll still overturn the call, etc….

  35. snarkk said, on April 2, 2014 at 3:01 pm

    Do we even know who is staffing the vaunted NYC replay review center? As far as I know, they could have a coupla chimps in there watching one TV with a night’s supply of bananas — they throw fruit at a couple of red and green button switches and that’s how the umps’ calls are confirmed or overturned…

  36. Chipower9 said, on April 2, 2014 at 4:03 pm

    1.Pagan CF
    2.Belt 1B
    3.Sandoval 3B
    4.Posey C
    5.Pence RF
    6.Morse LF
    7.Crawford SS
    8.Adrianza 2B
    9.Hudson P

    • Bozo said, on April 2, 2014 at 4:33 pm

      Giving Arias the night off? I like the looks of this LU.

      • pawliekokonuts said, on April 2, 2014 at 4:46 pm

        Go easy on my man Arias. Morse and Pence aren’t hitting either, last I checked.

      • Bozo said, on April 2, 2014 at 5:26 pm

        Pawlie, sorry man, I just don’t like him starting in the middle inf. Pinch hitting or giving Pablo a day off, I have no problems with. His hitting (or lack of) isn’t what has been bothering me.

  37. peets said, on April 2, 2014 at 4:11 pm

    Replay is one of the most boring topics. Play ball!

    • zumiee said, on April 2, 2014 at 4:32 pm

      I would disagree. And I think the Giants, at the moment, would disagree, too.

  38. pawliekokonuts said, on April 2, 2014 at 4:42 pm

    I already see portents of this being a Dickensian season, as in best-of-times, worst-of-times. I don’t even know what that means, but it sounds interesting, in a latte-sipping way. Good to see Twin here, as well as a few names I don’t recognize.

    What’s tonight’s score, 13-11? (Actually, I feel good about Hudson.)

    • blade3colorado said, on April 2, 2014 at 5:06 pm

      I hope so. He’s my starting pitcher for my fanduel tournament tonight.

  39. Flavor said, on April 2, 2014 at 4:51 pm

    I’m fine with giving Adrianza the start. I don’t think he’s going to do anything special but I prefer Arias coming from the bench. Our bench is stronger with this line up—and that DOES matter in baseball.
    The problem with a guy like Adrianza, and it’s this way with all young players who get thrown a bone of playing time every now and again, is that he’s going to be swinging at absolutely everything.And batting down there in front of Hudson, I see him swinging at multiple pitches in the dirt and/or out of the strike zone tonight…..

  40. blade3colorado said, on April 2, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    I just saw a great double play started by the Marlins Yelich on Cargo (who was on 1st) rounding 2nd on a deep fly to left that Yelich caught, threw to the cutoff man, who nailed Cargo at 1st trying to get back to the bag. Nice play.

  41. DJLoo said, on April 2, 2014 at 5:50 pm

    Does a letter of authenticity have to be authenticated?

    • pawliekokonuts said, on April 2, 2014 at 6:50 pm

      Do you wash your soap?

  42. snarkk said, on April 2, 2014 at 6:08 pm

    Hudson’s a ground ball hurler. Unfortunately, this infield is like a billiard table. Could be a bunch of grounder hits tonight…

  43. blade3colorado said, on April 2, 2014 at 6:22 pm

    This column is fantasy related (so take it with a grain of salt), but it is interesting due to several key statements made by the writer regarding Kershaw. All good news for us, including the likelihood that Kershaw wont be around until sometime in May, and Kershaw’s fastball was ONLY clocked at 88 MPH in Oz land.

    http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/fantasy-roto-arcade/mostly-mlb-notes-talking-clayton-kershaw-closers-look-010413186–mlb.html


Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 497 other followers

%d bloggers like this: