Blue Jays Discussion: WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo!!!!!!!!!! (avatars: posts 1-4)

[HamiltonNHL]

It's oddly quiet Re: Loup.
Must be serious.
Hopefully he can talk about it when he's ready and not when the media hound him.
I'd rather not knowing unless he wants to talk about it.
I would like to know when he's ready to pitch !!

 

[Daisy Jane]

No problem at all!

I think that point of view makes sense when it's coming from someone who's a hockey fan first (and it's awesome that you clearly want to learn, so kudos to you - it makes conversations a lot more fun).

In hockey, like in most sports, offense and defense overlap, so it often makes sense to alter your offensive strategy to counter what the opposition offense is trying to do. But in baseball, the two are clearly divided, so what one team is trying to do to score runs shouldn't impact how the other team tries to score... if that makes sense. If the Jays hit three home runs, the Royals should continue to do what works best for them. If they suddenly go up swinging for the fences, they'll probably just fly out a lot because, in general, they're not a power hitting team.

thanks that does make a lot of sense now.

 

[TootooTrain]

 

[Diamond Joe Quimby]

Do they shift Tulostrikeout to a little farther down in the order? Perhaps move Pillar up a bit?

 

[Quagmier]

They're not allowed to. They just made it so they can't step out of the box.

Exactly...new rules to help speed up the game have made it more likely that a batter would do what Choo did in the batter's box. Obviously its a new wrinkle to the game that MLB had recently implemented that was naturally going to come with some unforseen consequences. One of which just so happened to be that Choo, totally within his rights (and abiding by the new rule), got in the way of a routine throw back to the pitcher.

Choo wasn't doing anything intentionally, Martin didn't "screw up" by doing what he has done 10,000 times before, Odor did the right thing, and the Ump, though bungling the call originally, eventually got the call correct.

...that doesn't mean this rule, given MLB's new speedy play policy, shouldn't be totally revamped. Next thing you know players will be checking their bats like pool cues in order to maximize disruption to the catcher. "Is this bat crooked? hmmm better check it after that pitch!"

 

[Longshot]

Saw the replay of the 7th inning and I had no idea how badly Odor screwed up on the Donaldson pop up. I thought it was one of the baseball bloops that was just beyond his reach, but after seeing it again. Wow. Odor was tripping all over himself.

 

[Discoverer]

The rules were incorrectly applied. The burden of proof is on the batter to get out of the way. He has lots of time to play with his shirt when the ball is in the pitcher's hands. He interfered with the play and there was no proof it was unintentional. Since the burden of proof is on him .... the play is automatically dead and he should receive a warning for unsportsmanlike behaviour.

Again, everything you're saying here is just made up. Where in the rulebook does it say the burden of proof is on the batter to get out of the way? Just as he can play with his shirt later, Martin can lean over a bit more or wait half a second before he throws it.

You're the only one (professional analysts included) who thinks it was intentional.

 

[Muston Atthews]

Again, everything you're saying here is just made up. Where in the rulebook does it say the burden of proof is on the batter to get out of the way? Just as he can play with his shirt later, Martin can lean over a bit more or wait half a second before he throws it.

You're the only one (professional analysts included) who thinks it was intentional.

Or stand up and throw it to him

 

[napoleon in rags]

Who was your MVP in the ALDS? I have Pillar. He was all over the diamond. Played amazing.

Agreed.

 

[Longshot]

Exactly...new rules to help speed up the game have made it more likely that a batter would do what Choo did in the batter's box. Obviously its a new wrinkle to the game that MLB had recently implemented that was naturally going to come with some unforseen consequences. One of which just so happened to be that Choo, totally within his rights (and abiding by the new rule), got in the way of a routine throw back to the pitcher.

Choo wasn't doing anything intentionally, Martin didn't "screw up" by doing what he has done 10,000 times before, Odor did the right thing, and the Ump, though bungling the call originally, eventually got the call correct.

...that doesn't mean this rule, given MLB's new speedy play policy, shouldn't be totally revamped. Next thing you know players will be checking their bats like pool cues in order to maximize disruption to the catcher. "Is this bat crooked? hmmm better check it after that pitch!"

Well put. I can see MLB taking a look at that rule to prevent something like this from happening in the future.

I mean, if you think about it, a batter in the box could take a practice swing and hit the ball (I know the odds of this are astronomical, but it is possible) - completely by accident - and advance a runner that way.

 

[Discoverer]

Or stand up and throw it to him

Exactly. Even if Choo did do it on purpose (which all but one person agrees was not the case), there are so many things Martin could have done differently to make sure it didn't happen.

Here's a thought: if they change the rule so the onus is always on the batter to get out of the way, I really hope catchers start intentionally hitting batters with the ball every time they throw it back. Although I guess that would be complicated because the burden of proof would be on the catcher and we would have to assume he did it on purpose.

 

[Diamond Joe Quimby]

Saw the replay of the 7th inning and I had no idea how badly Odor screwed up on the Donaldson pop up. I thought it was one of the baseball bloops that was just beyond his reach, but after seeing it again. Wow. Odor was tripping all over himself.

Yeah. He had a rough time getting to the ball.

 

[Muston Atthews]

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/...-trash-field-game-5-alds-texas-rangers-101415

Coutinho said the Jays will meet Thursday morning to discuss any adjustments in security that need to take place for the ALCS. Here’s one suggestion: Stop the lame, “Fans are warned not to throw anything on the field,” announcements if a disturbance occurs. Get tough and threaten an actual forfeit by the home team.

Would baseball order a forfeit of a postseason game? I doubt it. But perhaps some of the tough guys in the crowd would have cooled it if they thought their behavior might have caused the Jays to lose.

Yeah Rosenthal... making the home team forfeit the game would sure temper the crowd down.

 

[Habsawce]

and the KC trolls have been unleashed

ZZZZzzZzZzz

You'd think a stadium that was packed all year vs. a stadium that was packed for 1/3 of the season would have higher attendance. Guess not.

 

[Longshot]

Agreed.

I don't think they give out an MVP award for the ALDS, but I would consider Stroman. I know they would never give it to a pitcher without a win, but he easily could have received wins in both his starts. I thought he was terrific.

 

[Quagmier]

Well put. I can see MLB taking a look at that rule to prevent something like this from happening in the future.

I mean, if you think about it, a batter in the box could take a practice swing and hit the ball (I know the odds of this are astronomical, but it is possible) - completely by accident - and advance a runner that way.

The whole situation is a decent (but imperfect) example of the cobra effect, where an attempted solution to a problem actually makes the problem worse.

 

[Daisy Jane]

Oh, i didn't realise Hamels was the one who didn't want to be a Blue Jay.
interesting.

 

[Longshot]

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/...-trash-field-game-5-alds-texas-rangers-101415



Yeah Rosenthal... making the home team forfeit the game would sure temper the crowd down.

No kidding. Because that will make things better.

Bottom line: sometimes it happens and it's usually predicated by something that happened on the field (the call on the Rangers third run).

It's not an ongoing, constant problem in any stadium and there is no reason to overreact to some isolated incidents.

The best way to deal with it is having strong enforcement when something like that goes down. It probably would have helped for the umps to get the players off the field (although have some of the Jays urging the crowd to stop, probably would be a bigger help).

It's one of those things that happens on occasion when you mix passion, excitement, anger and - yes - alcohol.

 

[Daisy Jane]

http://www.foxsports.com/mlb/story/...-trash-field-game-5-alds-texas-rangers-101415



Yeah Rosenthal... making the home team forfeit the game would sure temper the crowd down.

right?

 

[theaub]

Well if they did say 'stop throwing stuff or there will be a forfeit' people would've stopped

Also this paragraph from the Grantland review pretty much 100% speaks to why I didn't even care that people threw stuff

Sure, throwing stuff onto the field isn’t going to accomplish anything, and when you consider how much it probably hurts to get hit on the head with a beer can thrown from the upper deck, it’s also more than a little unsafe. But despite being warned against it, and being aware of the futility and the danger of it — to say nothing of the fact that we’re conditioned from childhood not to literally throw things when we’re upset — hundreds or even thousands of fans threw things onto the field.

We’re supposed to have evolved beyond displays of incoherent rage. We’ve suppressed that instinct in ourselves and covered our world in rules to try to prevent that rage from bubbling to the surface, but from time to time, we’re confronted with an outside stimulus so bizarre, so unexpected, and so enraging that it seems like societal order shouldn’t allow it. But bizarre (and, frankly, unfair) as it seemed at the time, it happened anyway, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Civilization failed us, and when civilization fails us, a civilized response just isn’t enough. It wasn’t right, or smart, to throw things, but it was the most human thing to do.

 

[Eb]

People just drop the issue because it didn't matter in the end.

That is not the case at all. We have become level headed since last night, and as intelligent sport fanatics we have realized the call was correct and have dropped it.

Please stop spamming this thread with your nonsense.

 

[Dough72]

is a team that manufactures runs a harder opponent for the Jays pitchers?

seems that way to me but I dont' remember the jays struggling against them. I remember them sweeping the Royals like they were nothing. Not sure that happened but it's what I remember.

 

[Longshot]

The whole situation is a decent (but imperfect) example of the cobra effect, where an attempted solution to a problem actually makes the problem worse.

I'm glad you pointed that out. I didn't realize the connection between the new "speed up the game" rules (which, I was never too hot for).

It reminds me a little of shortly after the NHL put in video review for goals, but they limited the number of things the refs could review. And it created this situation where a player caught a puck in his hand and threw it in the net and the refs could only ask if the puck had been kicked in.

 

[HamiltonNHL]

Where in the rulebook does it say the burden of proof is on the batter to get out of the way?

Where does it not say that ?

If batters mess around with throws back to the mound ... it messes everything up.

Pitchers throws
Catcher catches the ball.
The next play from here is the catcher has to throw the ball back.
The batter needs to *MOVE OUT OF THE WAY*.
He didn't.

The main problem here is the rule.
The rules need fixing.

The rule needs to be unintentional interference makes the ball dead.
The fact that there is no such rule is plain wrong.
This situation proved it.

My guess is that such a rule is implemented. But until then ... batters should practice advancing the runners via "unintentionally getting in the way" of the throw back to the mound.

I think it's odd there is no good rule for this situation. It must have happened many times. Especially with batters sticking their bat out oddly like that.

To me ... Choo purposefully put his arm out. It is his arm. His bat clearly interfered with the play. He was at fault. And next time he should get out of the way.

 

[Muston Atthews]

Well if they did say 'stop throwing stuff or there will be a forfeit' people would've stopped

Also this paragraph from the Grantland review pretty much 100% speaks to why I didn't even care that people threw stuff

Sure, throwing stuff onto the field isn’t going to accomplish anything, and when you consider how much it probably hurts to get hit on the head with a beer can thrown from the upper deck, it’s also more than a little unsafe. But despite being warned against it, and being aware of the futility and the danger of it — to say nothing of the fact that we’re conditioned from childhood not to literally throw things when we’re upset — hundreds or even thousands of fans threw things onto the field.

We’re supposed to have evolved beyond displays of incoherent rage. We’ve suppressed that instinct in ourselves and covered our world in rules to try to prevent that rage from bubbling to the surface, but from time to time, we’re confronted with an outside stimulus so bizarre, so unexpected, and so enraging that it seems like societal order shouldn’t allow it. But bizarre (and, frankly, unfair) as it seemed at the time, it happened anyway, and there was nothing anyone could do about it. Civilization failed us, and when civilization fails us, a civilized response just isn’t enough. It wasn’t right, or smart, to throw things, but it was the most human thing to do.

I doubt it, the people who are going to throw things will probably think "they won't actually do it" and probably throw more things.