PDA

View Full Version : Roy Halladay, a standing "O"



Brutus
10-07-2010, 01:40 AM
I went through and re-watched the game. No, I'm not a sadomasochist, but just wanted to take in Halladay's performance.

After getting over the initial sting and burn of the whole no-hitter, watching as a baseball fan, I would like to applaud what Halladay did last night. It's almost disappointing in hindsight that he walked Jay Bruce in the 5th. Because after watching this game again, he actually pitched one of the better games I've watched in my young life (watching baseball since 1990).

While the Kerry Wood 20-strikeout game gets a lot of mention for possibly the most dominating game of the last 20 years or so, and there have been a few perfect games this past decade, Halladay's command and precision movement on every single pitch he threw Wednesday was phenomenal.

I really think we need to drop the pretense he was aided by the strike zone. He was unhittable and while being just the second postseason no-no in MLB history should be enough to contextualize the performance, I wish it were a perfect game because - he was that good.

Chew on these numbers:

104 pitches, 79 strikes / 25 balls

28 batters faced, 25 balls

28 batters faced, 25 first-pitch strikes

94 game score (tied for third best this season behind his own perfect game and Brandon Morrow's 17 K 1-hitter)

12 grounders, 3 infield flies, 3 flyouts and 1 lineout (Travis Wood)

In the last 20 years, there have been about 50 game scores better than his 94 (all between 95-101). But given the circumstances of this one, his unbelievable ball-strike ratio and grounder-flyball ratio, this game is as good as almost any of them.

He may not have rivaled some of the overpowering games of baseball history, but his flow, command, break and mixing up his pitches was absolutely unbelievable to watch. If I were teaching a son how to pitch, I'd pull this game out and show him.

From a standpoint as a Reds' fan, this game bit the bullet. But going back watching from the view of a baseball purist, you have to tip your cap and acknowledge that was one heck of a game by the pitcher. Truly historic.

BoydsOfSummer
10-07-2010, 02:21 AM
Just finished watching it. One hell of a performance! That's the NL's best offense he just dominated in the playoffs. Impressive.

icehole3
10-07-2010, 03:58 AM
I couldnt believe not one player squaring up to bunt, every batter tried to swing for a homerun on their first swing, that tells me the Reds were trying to hit 5 run homers

dman
10-07-2010, 05:51 AM
I felt like I do when we show up up at a big Hunter/Jumper show with my daughter and her Quarter Horse and we're competing against all these big European Warmblood breeds. Outclassed at every corner, and you wish that you (or in this case the Reds) had the money to be able to compete on that level with those kind of players.

Anyway, fantastic performance ny Halliday.

cumberlandreds
10-07-2010, 07:26 AM
That was one of the best pitched games I have ever seen. He was as good as you can get. I doubt the 27 Yankees,the 76 Reds or any other great hitting team could have done much better. You just have to tip your cap to him and come back Friday and go get Oswalt.

Heath
10-07-2010, 07:31 AM
Reds seemed jacked up. They did not disrupt anything until Votto stepped out in the 7th.

There were some calls that Halladay got that were questionable, and John Hirschbeck had a very liberal strike zone.

Phhhl
10-07-2010, 09:16 AM
I give Halladay all of the credit in the world for having some of the best stuff I have ever seen for a single ballgame. His command was perfect, and the sinker was absolutely devastating. But, even when you have no hit stuff, the odds against a pitcher pulling it off on a given night are astronomical.

So, while in awe of the performance, I cannot completely dismiss the horrible strike zone as a contributing factor to the no hitter. The umpire not only defied the eyeball test, but failed the Fox strike zone graphic with too many pitches last night to count (or, maybe someone CAN count them if they tivo'd the game or something). Halladay established the wide strike zone early and had such incredible command that he exploited it for the remainder of the game. It basically left Reds hitters no chance to square up a pitch all night long, forcing them to swing at pitches off the plate early in the count.

Lots of pitchers go into games with no hit stuff and cannot get it done. Halladay probably does more than 20 x's a season. I felt the Reds were not only facing a beast of a pitcher last night, but one that had the benifit of some additional help too. I don't view that as detracting from the performance whatsoever.

15fan
10-07-2010, 09:17 AM
The only way to hit Halladay last night was to guess before he threw the pitch.

He was working both sides of the plate and getting a ton of movement on each of his pitches.

A lineup of Aaron, Mays, Clemente, DiMaggio, Williams, Robinson, Mantle, Bench and Griffey Jr wouldn't have fared much better.

OesterPoster
10-07-2010, 09:53 AM
While I don't think he got too many favorable strikes called last night (though it seemed like Rolen had at least 1 ball in every AB called a strike), I do recall Halladay getting similar treatment in his perfect game earlier this year. Some quotes from that game against the Marlins:


While saluting Halladay, the Marlins did say they thought he benefited from a favorable strike zone by DiMuro that was evident from the first inning.

Chris Coghlan led off the game by striking out on a 3-2 count.

"I thought it was close, a ball, but obviously it was a strike to the umpire tonight," Coghlan said.

Halladay had seven three-ball counts and all but one were full counts.

"I don't want to talk about the strike zone because that discredits what he did," Coghlan said. "But there were some pitches that were close, but you can't do nothing about it now."

He had pinpoint control each night, and he had ridiculous movement on the pitches in the zone. But having the right umpire behind the plate, and getting a little luck with ground balls hit directly at defenders all added up to almost the same thing.

lollipopcurve
10-07-2010, 10:00 AM
I have to say, about a half hour before the announcer said that Charlie Manuel likened Halladay to Greg Maddux, but with better velocity, I had the exact same thought. He has impeccable command of lots of pitches all over the strike zone. Throw in 93/94 on the fastball, and forget it.

membengal
10-07-2010, 10:01 AM
As Radar would have said on Mash, as far as I am concerned, halladay and the phils can go to h e double hockey sticks.

reds1869
10-07-2010, 10:11 AM
I couldnt believe not one player squaring up to bunt, every batter tried to swing for a homerun on their first swing, that tells me the Reds were trying to hit 5 run homers

Bunting for the first hit when a no-hitter is in progress is a big no-no. It is a very good way to get one in your teammate's ear. The unwritten code of the game still applies in the playoffs.

oneupper
10-07-2010, 10:49 AM
.
I really think we need to drop the pretense he was aided by the strike zone.

Why? Because you don't agree?
Who's "we"? This board?
I'm not dropping anything because you think "we" need to.

I can agree to disagree. Can you?

I have no interest in homogenizing perceptions here.
I've read your arguments, I respect your opinion. I don't agree.

Please respect mine.

Cedric
10-07-2010, 10:56 AM
I don't really give standing O's to players like Halladay and Oswalt. For some reason they get a pass for their behavior in getting out of contracts from other teams.

Other players in other sports have been hammered for far less than that. I suggest Oswalt might have even quit on the Astros to force a trade.

Great job last night though.

sivman17
10-07-2010, 10:58 AM
Bunting for the first hit when a no-hitter is in progress is a big no-no. It is a very good way to get one in your teammate's ear. The unwritten code of the game still applies in the playoffs.

I don't buy this. It's the playoffs. I can understand not trying to bunt in the 7th or 8th inning during a no-no in May or June, but come on. You don't just roll over and let him pitch a no-no because it's "in the spirit of the game."

You're up there hacking and trying to get a hit. Are you going to feel bad if you do get a hit in the 8th or 9th inning? Hell no. Why would you feel bad if they are going to allow a bunt single?

Bologna, I'm sorry.

Griffey012
10-07-2010, 11:58 AM
I don't really give standing O's to players like Halladay and Oswalt. For some reason they get a pass for their behavior in getting out of contracts from other teams.

Other players in other sports have been hammered for far less than that. I suggest Oswalt might have even quit on the Astros to force a trade.

Great job last night though.

I wouldn't lump Halladay in there with Oswalt. Halladay has never tasted the post-season, and the Jays did not look like they were putting together a contender. He has been nothing but professional through his entire time with the Jays...I wouldn't hold it against the man simply because he wanted to move on and have a shot at the title.

Oswalt's a different scenario because he had tasted to post-season with the Astros a couple of times.

Griffey012
10-07-2010, 11:59 AM
Bunting for the first hit when a no-hitter is in progress is a big no-no. It is a very good way to get one in your teammate's ear. The unwritten code of the game still applies in the playoffs.

If we got a bunt for a basehit then Halladay hit a guy, we would have had our first RISP of the night...just sayin'

Patrick Bateman
10-07-2010, 12:12 PM
I wouldn't lump Halladay in there with Oswalt. Halladay has never tasted the post-season, and the Jays did not look like they were putting together a contender. He has been nothing but professional through his entire time with the Jays...I wouldn't hold it against the man simply because he wanted to move on and have a shot at the title.

Oswalt's a different scenario because he had tasted to post-season with the Astros a couple of times.

I agree. Living in Canada, my Blue Jay fan friends all admire Halladay, and were hoping for the Phillies in the playoffs.

The decision to leave Toronto was completely mutual. The Jays weren't in love with the idea of extending Halladay knowing that their plan to compete was not right away. Halladay wasn't like most guys trying to take the Jays to cleaners in contract talks. He ended up taking a very reasonable salary to move on to Philly.

Halladay was ready in his career to pitch in the playoffs. The Jays decided that wasn't their short term plan, as such, it was in the best interests of both parties to move on.

OldRightHander
10-07-2010, 01:11 PM
Bunting for the first hit when a no-hitter is in progress is a big no-no. It is a very good way to get one in your teammate's ear. The unwritten code of the game still applies in the playoffs.

But, and this is a big but, what if Cabrera makes that play or Volquez retires Halladay and Philly doesn't get those other 3 runs. If you're down 1-0 instead of 4-0 in a playoff game, then can you justify trying to get on base any way you can, unwritten rules be darned? I would do it.

Brutus
10-07-2010, 01:19 PM
I give Halladay all of the credit in the world for having some of the best stuff I have ever seen for a single ballgame. His command was perfect, and the sinker was absolutely devastating. But, even when you have no hit stuff, the odds against a pitcher pulling it off on a given night are astronomical.

So, while in awe of the performance, I cannot completely dismiss the horrible strike zone as a contributing factor to the no hitter. The umpire not only defied the eyeball test, but failed the Fox strike zone graphic with too many pitches last night to count (or, maybe someone CAN count them if they tivo'd the game or something). Halladay established the wide strike zone early and had such incredible command that he exploited it for the remainder of the game. It basically left Reds hitters no chance to square up a pitch all night long, forcing them to swing at pitches off the plate early in the count.

Lots of pitchers go into games with no hit stuff and cannot get it done. Halladay probably does more than 20 x's a season. I felt the Reds were not only facing a beast of a pitcher last night, but one that had the benifit of some additional help too. I don't view that as detracting from the performance whatsoever.

According to Pitch F/X, his calls, with only a few exceptions, were actually rather accurate:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/HalladayGrab.jpg

Brutus
10-07-2010, 01:23 PM
Why? Because you don't agree?
Who's "we"? This board?
I'm not dropping anything because you think "we" need to.

I can agree to disagree. Can you?

I have no interest in homogenizing perceptions here.
I've read your arguments, I respect your opinion. I don't agree.

Please respect mine.

You've seen the graph for the game, and apparently chose to ignore it. So it's fine to have an opinion, but it seems like you're opting to believe something that isn't corroborated by the best gauge we have on the strike zone.

But while you have the right to the opinion, I have the right to tell you it comes across as whining when a guy throws a historic game and was otherworldly with his stuff, and Reds' fans want to complain that it was partially because of the umpire. Brandon Phillips has a word for that.

I think "we" need to drop the pretense. You said you respect my opinions, yet you want to challenge it and continue to harp on something that affected, at most, 4-5 pitches in the course of the game. Like I said, you can hold that opinion, but I can hold that it's a silly one.

blumj
10-07-2010, 01:37 PM
I mentioned this in another thread, but sometimes the networks use a different camera angle than most fans are used to seeing on their local broadcasts, and that can scew our perception of the strike zone. And I think their pitch zone boxes are pretty rough, too.

Caveat Emperor
10-07-2010, 01:45 PM
He's a hired gun the Phillies own because of the inequities of baseball's economics. His performance was aided by some of the worst plate discipline and worst hitting approaches I've ever seen in a post-season game. His feat wasn't aided by the umpires, it was aided by the Reds and their inability to formulate any sort of a gameplan.

Not one bunt attempt.
Early hacks at bad breaking balls.
Not nearly enough done to change the flow of the game by the hitters at the plate.

I don't get into the whole "tip your cap" thing. The guy ruined my night last night, ruined the first postseason game my favorite team has played in since 1995. I'm not going to be happy about what he did. If that makes me a bitter fan and a poor sport, so be it.

Chip R
10-07-2010, 02:44 PM
But, and this is a big but, what if Cabrera makes that play or Volquez retires Halladay and Philly doesn't get those other 3 runs. If you're down 1-0 instead of 4-0 in a playoff game, then can you justify trying to get on base any way you can, unwritten rules be darned? I would do it.


If it's 1-0 or 2-0 and no one's on base, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Down 4-0 isn't cool. besides, the way most of tour guys bunt, it'd only end up being a pop up to the catcher or a fielder would throw him out.

cumberlandreds
10-07-2010, 02:52 PM
If it's 1-0 or 2-0 and no one's on base, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Down 4-0 isn't cool. besides, the way most of tour guys bunt, it'd only end up being a pop up to the catcher or a fielder would throw him out.

The Phillies would have loved to have seen the Reds bunt since they can't do it well at all.

Roy Tucker
10-07-2010, 02:58 PM
If it's 1-0 or 2-0 and no one's on base, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Down 4-0 isn't cool. besides, the way most of tour guys bunt, it'd only end up being a pop up to the catcher or a fielder would throw him out.

It's not cool to lose either. The heck with history. Whatever they need to do to get on base, I'd do it. Bunt, do a Derek Jeter fake-out HBP, stick your butt into a throw ala Reggie Jackson, whatever. Just get on base and try anything to make something happen.

With the score 4-0, the game isn't out of hand. A bunt, a fumbled grounder, a walk, and then Hallday makes one bad pitch and its 4-4. I know its a stretch, but not an unreasonable one.

Halladay isn't letting up. I don't expect the Reds to.

Caveat Emperor
10-07-2010, 03:10 PM
If it's 1-0 or 2-0 and no one's on base, then I wouldn't have a problem with it. Down 4-0 isn't cool. besides, the way most of tour guys bunt, it'd only end up being a pop up to the catcher or a fielder would throw him out.

Maybe it's just me -- and I never played baseball professional or at any level beyond high school -- but I'm doing anything I can to avoid being a historical footnote or the answer to a trivia question. I'd bunt at any time to break up a no-hitter, down 1-0 or down 15-0. If someone wants to call me a "punk" or say that I'm "violating the unwritten rules," so be it. As a competitor, there's no way I'd ever roll over and let someone else have their "moment."

smith288
10-07-2010, 03:14 PM
Yea, playoff game makes the "unwritten rule" go out the window. This is a time for winning, not a time to favor the sensibilities of etiquette...screw them. I want to see my team win.

smith288
10-07-2010, 03:15 PM
It's not cool to lose either. The heck with history. Whatever they need to do to get on base, I'd do it. Bunt, do a Derek Jeter fake-out HBP, stick your butt into a throw ala Reggie Jackson, whatever. Just get on base and try anything to make something happen.

With the score 4-0, the game isn't out of hand. A bunt, a fumbled grounder, a walk, and then Hallday makes one bad pitch and its 4-4. I know its a stretch, but not an unreasonable one.

Halladay isn't letting up. I don't expect the Reds to.
I dont think the reds ever got up, let alone let up...

oneupper
10-07-2010, 05:03 PM
You've seen the graph for the game, and apparently chose to ignore it. So it's fine to have an opinion, but it seems like you're opting to believe something that isn't corroborated by the best gauge we have on the strike zone.

But while you have the right to the opinion, I have the right to tell you it comes across as whining when a guy throws a historic game and was otherworldly with his stuff, and Reds' fans want to complain that it was partially because of the umpire. Brandon Phillips has a word for that.

I think "we" need to drop the pretense. You said you respect my opinions, yet you want to challenge it and continue to harp on something that affected, at most, 4-5 pitches in the course of the game. Like I said, you can hold that opinion, but I can hold that it's a silly one.

Let me summarize:

Your opinion: Ump's strike zone had nothing to do with a no-hitter being recorded.
My opinion: Ump's strike zone was a factor. With a narrower, more conventional zone, results would have likely been different (in terms of the no-hitter).

We are talking about what should be, and normally is a rare event and requires the aligning of skill from the pitcher, incompetence from the hitters and luck in the field.

To change that outcome, you don't need to correct "4 or 5" bad calls. You only need one. Was Halladay aided to make those stars align? I believe so.
Is there evidence to that point?. Yes.

The chart itself (I see a wide, low, extended zone, where every pitch is a strike). The fact the Phillies got one hit in the last seven innings (wide zone for everyone). Simple observation (yes, watching). Yes, even OCab's "whine", which I agree he should have never taken public, but I'd bet it was the consensus in the clubhouse.

Your opinion has been noted and recorded, and maybe in a universe with unlimited replay and do-overs, we could get every call right and affirm that what you say is the absolute truth (or perhaps even I'm right).

We don't have that. So, I will have to admit I don't know 100% for sure. (You might want to do the same, but I'm not holding my breath).

I do however, have a bit of trouble with absolutes and I have a lot of trouble being called a liar.

And you have no business telling me what I should or should not do or think.
If I want to "whine" (as you call it), I will "whine". If the mods or owners tell me to can it, I will. That's their prerogative. But not because you don't like it.

"We" need to learn some tolerance. Believe me, it's important.

Griffey012
10-07-2010, 05:12 PM
I mentioned this in another thread, but sometimes the networks use a different camera angle than most fans are used to seeing on their local broadcasts, and that can scew our perception of the strike zone. And I think their pitch zone boxes are pretty rough, too.

I agree, based off waht I saw on TV it looked like alot, and i mean ALOT of pitches were balls that were being called strikes.

Another reason this could have appeared this way is because of the amount of movement Halladay had. We as viewers really only have a good shot and where the catcher catches the ball and not where the ball crosses the plate. As much sink and running as he had on some of his fastballs it is really hard to tell if they did or did not catch a part of the plate.

The pitchfx data that Brutus posted makes me a little less inclined to trust my own eye.

Brutus
10-07-2010, 05:34 PM
Let me summarize:

Your opinion: Ump's strike zone had nothing to do with a no-hitter being recorded.
My opinion: Ump's strike zone was a factor. With a narrower, more conventional zone, results would have likely been different (in terms of the no-hitter).

We are talking about what should be, and normally is a rare event and requires the aligning of skill from the pitcher, incompetence from the hitters and luck in the field.

To change that outcome, you don't need to correct "4 or 5" bad calls. You only need one. Was Halladay aided to make those stars align? I believe so.
Is there evidence to that point?. Yes.

The chart itself (I see a wide, low, extended zone, where every pitch is a strike). The fact the Phillies got one hit in the last seven innings (wide zone for everyone). Simple observation (yes, watching). Yes, even OCab's "whine", which I agree he should have never taken public, but I'd bet it was the consensus in the clubhouse.

Your opinion has been noted and recorded, and maybe in a universe with unlimited replay and do-overs, we could get every call right and affirm that what you say is the absolute truth (or perhaps even I'm right).

We don't have that. So, I will have to admit I don't know 100% for sure. (You might want to do the same, but I'm not holding my breath).

I do however, have a bit of trouble with absolutes and I have a lot of trouble being called a liar.

And you have no business telling me what I should or should not do or think.
If I want to "whine" (as you call it), I will "whine". If the mods or owners tell me to can it, I will. That's their prerogative. But not because you don't like it.

"We" need to learn some tolerance. Believe me, it's important.

I don't know where you'd get the impression I'm calling you a "liar." I don't believe for a second you're lying. You clearly believe what you do. I just think you're ignoring the chart because you know it makes your belief a little unlikely to be rational. You'd rather believe the umpire aided the Reds to be no-hit than to think they were capable of getting shut down the way they were. Or maybe you have a different reason, but either way you do seem to be ignoring the facts that only a very select few pitches were called outside the zone, at least if Pitch F/X is to be believed. And I would understand if you don't trust it, but you haven't given any indication, and you even showed Hirshbeck's normal tendencies so I'm inclined to trust you do in fact believe Pitch F/X somewhat.

If you look at the chart, then, you'll see only (exactly) 3 pitches were called outside of the black box on Cincinnati all night long. The others outside the zone were called on Philadelphia.

So answer me this... do you really think three (3) pitches called outside the zone is enough to be labeled a 'large' zone? That's only one pitch every three innings. No matter how good an umpire is, that is probably the standard error for that kind of a sample.

So if we take the chart at face value, is 3 pitches going to define a large zone against Cincinnati? Does that really impact a no-hitter? Forget what you thought you saw originally and just concentrate on the data... do you really believe 3 pitches is a big impact?

oneupper
10-07-2010, 06:46 PM
Pretense:
1. An attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.
Sounds like lying to me.

As for your questions:

Not ignoring the chart, but I certainly don't take it at face value. For starters, F/X is supposed to be accurate up to one inch (according to the guys who sell it...but everyone who's used gameday knows there are glitches). That's half a baseball. One inch is a lot of space when we're talking about home plate and balls and strikes. (It's the difference with all those dots "on the line").

The way it is set up (cameras), is also not totally exact. MLB is not ready to switch it for their human umps. The data is also further processed and "normalized". I take it with a grain of salt. Like you say, it's what we have. But we have eyes also, if you watch enough baseball (and we all do), your eyes will tell you when something is "off". Lots of fans here thought something was "off". We could have been using the eyes of our "heart" rather than our brains, but... I wouldn't totally disregard that.

The chart certainly lacks data, but there are no called balls inside those outside and inside strikes. Batters will, upon striking out and sometimes even on fouls, commonly ask if it was good pitch. We don't see that, but that is information that is processed. Right or wrong, the REDS hitters were convinced that anything close would be called a strike. In hindsight, for our sake they should have taken a few more close ones. We'll never know. They didn't help themselves or this discussion.

The pitches taken by the Phillies are absolutely relevant. Reds pitchers pitch them and may have shared the information with their teammates. "The zone is wide tonight, guys. I got a call three inches inside". Do players discuss this sort of thing? Absolutely.

And yes, three bad calls are more than enough. Especially when they are as extreme as the call on Rolen, and set a tone. Remember, we are looking at a chain of events that occurred in succession to produce a highly improbable result. A black swan, for those who like the term. We all know that one pitch can change an at bat. One at bat certainly is all that is required to change the improbable result (a no-hitter).

My opinion is that, human as he is, the umps zone and perception thereof guided the game towards the unlikely result. Perhaps not consciously (although he did throw J. Smith out a few weeks ago, after choice words were exchanged if you like conspiracies), but probably because of a sense of "history".

If a robot were calling the strikes and balls with absolute accuracy, I'd put good money on a different result and give great odds, too.

I looked in the mirror today and didn't see a crazy person. I have to stop trusting my eyes so much.

Brutus
10-07-2010, 07:37 PM
Pretense:
1. An attempt to make something that is not the case appear true.
Sounds like lying to me.

As for your questions:

Not ignoring the chart, but I certainly don't take it at face value. For starters, F/X is supposed to be accurate up to one inch (according to the guys who sell it...but everyone who's used gameday knows there are glitches). That's half a baseball. One inch is a lot of space when we're talking about home plate and balls and strikes. (It's the difference with all those dots "on the line").

The way it is set up (cameras), is also not totally exact. MLB is not ready to switch it for their human umps. The data is also further processed and "normalized". I take it with a grain of salt. Like you say, it's what we have. But we have eyes also, if you watch enough baseball (and we all do), your eyes will tell you when something is "off". Lots of fans here thought something was "off". We could have been using the eyes of our "heart" rather than our brains, but... I wouldn't totally disregard that.

The chart certainly lacks data, but there are no called balls inside those outside and inside strikes. Batters will, upon striking out and sometimes even on fouls, commonly ask if it was good pitch. We don't see that, but that is information that is processed. Right or wrong, the REDS hitters were convinced that anything close would be called a strike. In hindsight, for our sake they should have taken a few more close ones. We'll never know. They didn't help themselves or this discussion.

The pitches taken by the Phillies are absolutely relevant. Reds pitchers pitch them and may have shared the information with their teammates. "The zone is wide tonight, guys. I got a call three inches inside". Do players discuss this sort of thing? Absolutely.

And yes, three bad calls are more than enough. Especially when they are as extreme as the call on Rolen, and set a tone. Remember, we are looking at a chain of events that occurred in succession to produce a highly improbable result. A black swan, for those who like the term. We all know that one pitch can change an at bat. One at bat certainly is all that is required to change the improbable result (a no-hitter).

My opinion is that, human as he is, the umps zone and perception thereof guided the game towards the unlikely result. Perhaps not consciously (although he did throw J. Smith out a few weeks ago, after choice words were exchanged if you like conspiracies), but probably because of a sense of "history".

If a robot were calling the strikes and balls with absolute accuracy, I'd put good money on a different result and give great odds, too.

I looked in the mirror today and didn't see a crazy person. I have to stop trusting my eyes so much.

A pretense can be a false allegation or claim but does not have to be an outright lie. There are subtle differences between those words. A lie is most usually also a pretense, but a pretense is not always a lie.

Regarding the Pitch F/X, I'm certainly not one to say it's exact. But I trust it A) more than the pitch trax that the stations use (as they only use 1-2 cameras whereby Pitch F/X uses up to 5 separate cameras, if memory serves me). I most certainly trust it more than the human eyes. The system uses two cameras at 30 frames per second behind home plate, two in centerfield and censors down the first base and third base lines. I totally agree that there will be glitches and not every pitch is perfect, but would you trust technology that analyzes data from 5-6 sources or would you trust an eyeball test from one camera angle 400 feet away? Their data may not be 100% accurate, but it's still going to be better than our own perception.

The Rolen call happened in the 5th inning. Cincinnati was already struggling by that point. To say one call changed the game may or may not be true, but if it is, that's the Reds' fault for being weak-minded. They were intimidated and over-matched to begin with, so using the Rolen call is a convenient excuse for ineptitude. It's still weak to suggest one strikeout caused a no-hitter. The Reds had 14 more opportunities to get a base hit after that Rolen strikeout and failed to do so. That's on them, not the umpire.

I think the problem, and I mentioned this during the game thread, is that Hirschbeck actually called the clinical strike zone a bit more than most umpires. It wasn't that he had a large strike zone, he had a strikezone that was more by the book and calls that were legitimately strikes were being called. The data appears to corroborate that. I said this before and I'll say it again, I dearly wish every umpire would call his strike zone. Baseball would be better off with that zone rather than the peanut size zone we usually see from umpires. I thank John Hirschbeck for a job well done. I'm disappointed that anyone is blaming the umpire for a team being flat-out overmatched. The Reds have no one to blame but themselves. They were atrocious and the pitcher was absolutely on top of his game. The umpire played no more a minimal part of the result than he normally does.

RFS62
10-07-2010, 09:51 PM
A lineup of Aaron, Mays, Clemente, DiMaggio, Williams, Robinson, Mantle, Bench and Griffey Jr wouldn't have fared much better.



Well, duh.

Those guys are either really old or, you know, dead.

:p: