NLDS Best of 5 GDST: Game 1 Dodgers @ Giants 9:37 EST

[Spanky99]

I'm waiting for my pops in Newmarket having eye surgery listening to Kevin Barker lay into the umpire and call, jokes. He's going off on Jeff Blair also, pretty comical.

[Laika]

Nope....protect the plate.

 

It was an unhittable pitch, lmao

 

You would have a valid point if he got called out on a pitch an inch or two outside the zone, but that's not the case

[Omar]

Umps deciding another game.

 

This was my post when the game ended. I'll leave it at that. On to the LCS.

[BigCecil]

I'm waiting for my pops in Newmarket having eye surgery listening to Kevin Barker lay into the umpire and call, jokes. He's going off on Jeff Blair also, pretty comical.

 

I don’t know what’s happening to me but I have actually gotten fond of Barker and his views for the most part. Blair I just find annoying. There is a lot of mindless fill in their stuff but Barker does share some quality analysis. He also seems like a genuinely decent guy. Humble about his failings to stick in MLB.

[Stangstag]

I don’t know what’s happening to me but I have actually gotten fond of Barker and his views for the most part. Blair I just find annoying. There is a lot of mindless fill in their stuff but Barker does share some quality analysis. He also seems like a genuinely decent guy. Humble about his failings to stick in MLB.

 

Jeff Blair is f***ing awful. And his physical makeover the last few years gives me pedo/predator vibes.

[Omar]

I don’t know what’s happening to me but I have actually gotten fond of Barker and his views for the most part. Blair I just find annoying. There is a lot of mindless fill in their stuff but Barker does share some quality analysis. He also seems like a genuinely decent guy. Humble about his failings to stick in MLB.

 

Barker seems to be speaking his mind more. Surprisingly i heard him criticize Montoyo a few weeks ago. You don't hear that on Sportsnet much.

[Spanky99]

Jeff Blair is f***ing awful. And his physical makeover the last few years gives me pedo/predator vibes.

 

lol... that's not fair man, but you did give me a good chuckle, he's married with a kid.

[Spanky99]

I don’t know what’s happening to me but I have actually gotten fond of Barker and his views for the most part. Blair I just find annoying. There is a lot of mindless fill in their stuff but Barker does share some quality analysis. He also seems like a genuinely decent guy. Humble about his failings to stick in MLB.

 

Yeah, from what I listened to today, Omar's right, he says what's on his mind. Blair seems to be the contrarian on most topics, cringe factor on full tilt. I rarely listen to them though.

[BigCecil]

Barker seems to be speaking his mind more. Surprisingly i heard him criticize Montoyo a few weeks ago. You don't hear that on Sportsnet much.

 

He has been vocal and critical of Charlie and many players. Always tempered some etc and usually with an “ I couldn’t do it”. But I like it. He speaks his mind such as it is.

[Brownie19]

lol... that's not fair man, but you did give me a good chuckle, he's married with a kid.

 

what's that have to do with him being a pedo/predator? Dude is f***ing awful at his job too.

[Spanky99]

what's that have to do with him being a pedo/predator? Dude is f***ing awful at his job too.

 

You serious? Labeling a guy a pedophile predator's not right. No matter how much you don't like the man, that's what's awful. lol

[Stangstag]

You serious? Labeling a guy a pedophile predator's not right. No matter how much you don't like the man, that's what's awful. lol

 

I said he gives pedo/predator VIBES. The man is like 60 and tries to dress like a 20 something businessman. But anyways yes you're right, that isn't a fair characterization based on his looks.

 

He still sucks as a baseball analyst.

[Spanky99]

I said he gives pedo/predator VIBES. The man is like 60 and tries to dress like a 20 something businessman. But anyways yes you're right, that isn't a fair characterization based on his looks.

 

He still sucks as a baseball analyst.

 

Well yeah, that's why I laughed. lol

[Brownie19]

You serious? Labeling a guy a pedophile predator's not right. No matter how much you don't like the man, that's what's awful. lol

 

I was just making a joke. The fact he's married with kids doesn't preclude anyone from being a pedo/predator!

[philly30]

lol... that's not fair man, but you did give me a good chuckle, he's married with a kid.

 

Charles manson was married. I think being married with kids probably has a good chance of turning you into a psycho.

[John_Havok]

When did “protect the plate” turn into “swing at a clear ball if you have 2 strikes just because?”

 

This whole thing isn’t even about protecting the plate anyways, not sure why this is being brought up.

 

Its about an umpire getting a check swing call wrong.

 

You could argue Flores should have either decided TO swing or decided to NOT swing instead of half swinging. But you can’t say he NEEDED to swing because he NEEDED to “protect the plate”, that’s moronic.

 

And holy f*** what a bad call it was. This was the 1st base equivalent of the Joe West strike zone... his wrists didn't come close to breaking and they were well back of the front of the plate, or whatever other criteria that is needed to determine a swing. Even in real time I didn't think it was a swing, then the side view replay came up... yeah, that call was brutal.

 

This is why I'm never in favour of adding more "umpire discretion" into the rule book. Their discretion is usually pretty random, indefensible and quite often wrong.

[Jimcanuck]

Bat head has to cross the front of the plate. In this case I don't think the bat head even reached the plate, much less cross the front of it.

 

One of the worst calls I have ever seen in 46 years of watching baseball.

[John_Havok]

Bat head has to cross the front of the plate. In this case I don't think the bat head even reached the plate, much less cross the front of it.

 

One of the worst calls I have ever seen in 46 years of watching baseball.

 

Would it surprise you to know there is absolutely no rule that covers what a swing is in the MLB rule book? It's 100% up to the discretion of the umpires. There's no mention of breaking the wrists, no mention of how far the bat head has to travel towards the plate... nothing.

 

Technically, the umpire could call any check swing a strike based on the fact that the hitter started a swing and stopped, even if the bat went 6 inches forward or 3 feet past the front of the plate.

 

It's kinda ridiculous that's there's no mention of anything in the MLB rulebook that gives even the slightest bit of guidance to umps on check swings, or as they referred to in the rule book - but not really defined... half swings.

[Spanky99]

Would it surprise you to know there is absolutely no rule that covers what a swing is in the MLB rule book? It's 100% up to the discretion of the umpires. There's no mention of breaking the wrists, no mention of how far the bat head has to travel towards the plate... nothing.

 

Technically, the umpire could call any check swing a strike based on the fact that the hitter started a swing and stopped, even if the bat went 6 inches forward or 3 feet past the front of the plate.

 

It's kinda ridiculous that's there's no mention of anything in the MLB rulebook that gives even the slightest bit of guidance to umps on check swings, or as they referred to in the rule book - but not really defined... half swings.

 

Jeff Passan mentioned this earlier today on the Fan, it surprised me. Former umpire something Scott was saying most umpires use the foul line as the barometer which makes sense, something should be in there more definitive.

[John_Havok]

Jeff Passan mentioned this earlier today on the Fan, it surprised me. Former umpire something Scott was saying most umpires use the foul line as the barometer which makes sense, something should be in there more definitive.

 

Yeah that's the thing, the foul line or some other reference point would be a decent starting point as long as every hitter stands in the exact same place in the batters box. I know they all tend to stand at the back of it these days, but for another batter who stands even a foot closer to the pitcher, his "half-swings" would be way out of whack by using the foul line.

 

That's the inherent problem with this kind of call when using some sort of physical marker on the field as a guideline. I'm sure umps want to get the calls correct, but it's been demonstrated time and again that in certain situations, umps have a tendency to err on the side of wrong. The strike zone mysteriously expands in a 3-0 count for example.

[Spanky99]

Yeah that's the thing, the foul line or some other reference point would be a decent starting point as long as every hitter stands in the exact same place in the batters box. I know they all tend to stand at the back of it these days, but for another batter who stands even a foot closer to the pitcher, his "half-swings" would be way out of whack by using the foul line.

 

That's the inherent problem with this kind of call when using some sort of physical marker on the field as a guideline. I'm sure umps want to get the calls correct, but it's been demonstrated time and again that in certain situations, umps have a tendency to err on the side of wrong. The strike zone mysteriously expands in a 3-0 count for example.

 

Agreed. Funny thing is Ruf clearly went around earlier in this series scoring a bases loaded run in which they won by a run, which one's worst???

[Stangstag]

Charles manson was married. I think being married with kids probably has a good chance of turning you into a psycho.

 

Lol

[max silver]

Would it surprise you to know there is absolutely no rule that covers what a swing is in the MLB rule book? It's 100% up to the discretion of the umpires. There's no mention of breaking the wrists, no mention of how far the bat head has to travel towards the plate... nothing.

 

Technically, the umpire could call any check swing a strike based on the fact that the hitter started a swing and stopped, even if the bat went 6 inches forward or 3 feet past the front of the plate.

 

It's kinda ridiculous that's there's no mention of anything in the MLB rulebook that gives even the slightest bit of guidance to umps on check swings, or as they referred to in the rule book - but not really defined... half swings.

 

Wasn't something like this tested in the Atlantic League at some point recently?

[John_Havok]

Wasn't something like this tested in the Atlantic League at some point recently?

 

Yeah in 2019: "Appeals on a half swing may be made only on the call of ball and when asked to appeal, the home plate umpire must refer to a base umpire for his judgment on the half swing. In making his ruling, the base umpire should determine whether the batter’s wrists “rolled over” during an attempt to strike at the ball and, if not, call the pitch a ball. Should the base umpire call the pitch a strike, the strike call shall prevail. Appeals on a half swing must be made before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play."

 

I have no idea how that testing turned out though

[G-Snarls]

Dodgers lose

 

Clayton Kershaw

Dustin May

Trevor Bauer

 

Yet still might have the best 3 man rotation left in the post season and probably favorites to win the WS now

[Brownie19]

Yeah in 2019: "Appeals on a half swing may be made only on the call of ball and when asked to appeal, the home plate umpire must refer to a base umpire for his judgment on the half swing. In making his ruling, the base umpire should determine whether the batter’s wrists “rolled over” during an attempt to strike at the ball and, if not, call the pitch a ball. Should the base umpire call the pitch a strike, the strike call shall prevail. Appeals on a half swing must be made before the next pitch, or any play or attempted play."

 

I have no idea how that testing turned out though

 

That doesn't make any sense - batters wrist shouldn't be rolling over until well after impact (or attempted impact).

[John_Havok]

That doesn't make any sense - batters wrist shouldn't be rolling over until well after impact (or attempted impact).

 

That's what I thought when I read it. Would be pretty easy to call a swing or not then, virtually everything would be called no swing if it ever needed to be appealed. Poorly written attempt at a rule there.