***official New York Yankees Thread***

[LongLiveYorke 38]

blah. Why do we take out Robertson when he was pitching so well and has been pitching so well all Post Season? Where is the logic in that?Pretty sick that Mariano got out of that situation, and pretty sad that we couldn't put it away. 2-1 Yankees. HAVE to win this next one. Angels vs CC. Let's do it.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I didn't actually get to see yesterday's game, so I don't know if he did it as much then, but Girardi's love of the mid-inning pitching change annoys me to no end.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

I didn't actually get to see yesterday's game, so I don't know if he did it as much then, but Girardi's love of the mid-inning pitching change annoys me to no end.

So annoying. Why overmanage?I mean, taking out Hughes and putting in Rivera was a no brainer. That kind of thing is fine. But why take out Robertson when he just got two outs, including a strikeout, and has nobody on base. But, really, we lost that game when we let them hit a two-run homer off our starter. There's no room for that nonsense in the playoffs. We won 5 straight playoffs games and we didn't let our opponents hit one home run. Yesterday, they hit two and we lost. We can't afford to blow 3 run leads in the post season. But, that's okay, we had to lose eventually, I guess.

[3A 0]

Any takers on tonights game I'm giving 3-2. I am taking the Yankees my $15 for anyones $10 for the Angels;payments on pokerstars. Message me or leave it here and I'll reply with a booked message. I will take up to 2 bets tonight.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

A-ROD is SUCH A BEAST, IT'S UNREAL!

[LongLiveYorke 38]

What an odd game this has turned out to be. So many weird plays base running and so many odd calls by the umpires.Oh well. Hopefully CC will cruise through another inning or two and we'll maintain our lead and make it a 3-1 series.

[timwakefield 68]

The umpires have been borderline HORRIBLE for the entire playoffs, at least the series I've watched (Yanks-Angels and Sox-Angels). Like, the missed "neighborhood" call the other day was almost surreal, and then tonight they've blown (at least?) two pretty obvious calls, the second one being really really bizarre. Two yankees, standing near 3rd base, neither of them actually on the base. Tag them both and they're both ou---nope, only one of them is out, the other one used his get out of jail free card so he's safe.Also, are the yankees always this bad at baserunning? It's kind of ridiculous. Like, nobody is ever out on an appeal to third...except tonight. Nobody ever doesn't score from 2nd on a double of the wall....except tonight.Anyways it's looking pretty likely that it's gonna be Phillies-Yankees, which should be pretty entertaining. Pedro back in NYC? Could be epic.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Also, are the yankees always this bad at baserunning? It's kind of ridiculous. Like, nobody is ever out on an appeal to third...except tonight. Nobody ever doesn't score from 2nd on a double of the wall....except tonight.

Umpires were horrible.No, the Yankees are usually pretty good at base running. We were pretty bad tonight, especially if you include Gardner being thrown out again.Luckily, we had CC, so it really didn't matter much.

[CaneBrain 95]

Also, are the yankees always this bad at baserunning? It's kind of ridiculous. Like, nobody is ever out on an appeal to third...except tonight. Nobody ever doesn't score from 2nd on a double of the wall....except tonight.

In fairness, the umpires blew that appeal call. Swisher did not leave early. More evidence of how awful the umpires have been. They also blew a tag call at 2nd base on a pickoff just seconds before blowing the appeal at third on the tag up. It's so incredibly bad. Baseball is so facking slow already but instant replay might be in order if the umps are going to be so brutal.

[timwakefield 68]

In fairness, the umpires blew that appeal call. Swisher did not leave early. More evidence of how awful the umpires have been. They also blew a tag call at 2nd base on a pickoff just seconds before blowing the appeal at third on the tag up. It's so incredibly bad. Baseball is so facking slow already but instant replay might be in order if the umps are going to be so brutal.

Ahh, I heard it on the radio so I didn't actually see it. The first blown call I was talking about was the pickoff at 2nd, and the second blown call was when everybody was out at 3rd. The problem with using more instant replay (beyond just home run calls) is that the game doesn't stop like football. If there's a play at 2nd, the ump makes a call, but there's often other runners still in play, and the ball is still completely live. If the ump's call had been opposite, the ensuing action may have been very different. Same with a caught/trapped ball in the outfield - you can't go back and review it because where should you put the runner(s)? Pretty much every call is like that, other than home runs. So like, they could use instant replay if there's 2 outs and nobody on base, but other than that it's kind of impossible. Even on a line-drive down the line, they can't use instant replay to determine fair/foul because, if a foul call ends up being reversed to fair, then what?

[JoeyJoJo 18]

That was the problem a lot of times early on in football, especially regarding the incomplete/fumble call. So officials have learned to let the play proceed as if it's a fumble and then make their call afterwards.I don't really think ensuing action is as prevalent as you make it out to be.The caught/trapped ball (with runners on base) is the only one that I see being a big problem.Also, how accurate are the strike zone boxes on TV? Can we just have those call balls and strikes? Put a big green light and a big red light behind home plate. If it's a ball the green light turns on, if it's a strike the red one.

[timwakefield 68]

The caught/trapped ball (with runners on base) is the only one that I see being a big problem.

No way, I feel like almost any call is going to run into problems. I'm trying to come up with good examples, but like everything is an example. I'm not sure where the disconnect is here (with you and me on this issue), but runners are constantly trying to get to the next base, and the ball is usually live immediately following any kind of play, and all sorts of things happen. It would end up with an awful lot of an automatic extra base, or an automatic extra 2 bases or something. In football it works because there's an effective 'time out' after every single play. You can break the game down into snaps, with each snap meaning the beginning of a new play. In baseball, you can't break the game down like that, because even during the 'time out' between pitches, the runners and the ball are still live and the game only stops for brief moments when somebody is granted time out or the inning ends.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

On out/safe calls where instant replay might be needed, the fielder is always going to have the ball in his possession, so no, runners aren't constantly trying to get to the next base.But let's say that's the case, what happens? Scenario:Runner at first, nobody out. Runner stealing, batter bunts the ball. Third baseman charges the ball and makes the throw to first and it's extremely close. Meanwhile the runner that was stealing tries to make it all the way to third. Does the first baseman stop to hear the out/safe call before making the throw to third?Is your concern that the batter would try to advance to 2nd if he was safe?The only issue I see is if the umpire calls him out and then the first baseman throws the ball away. But I can't think of a play that happens a lot that instant replay can't sort out.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Scenario:Runner at first, nobody out. Runner stealing, batter bunts the ball. Third baseman charges the ball and makes the throw to first and it's extremely close. Meanwhile the runner that was stealing tries to make it all the way to third. Does the first baseman stop to hear the out/safe call before making the throw to third?

What if there's one out before the play. If the first baseman makes the out at first, then he'd be unlikely to make a risky throw to third because there would be two outs. But if he misses the play, then he'd want to try to get the man at third, because with only one out, the man at third can score on a fly ball to the outfield.That's just one example, but it gets iffy and complicated fast. Base running can be pretty deep on a few occasions, even though it's somewhat simple for the most part.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

What if there's one out before the play. If the first baseman makes the out at first, then he'd be unlikely to make a risky throw to third because there would be two outs. But if he misses the play, then he'd want to try to get the man at third, because with only one out, the man at third can score on a fly ball to the outfield.

No. You're telling me that the first baseman is waiting for the umpire's call before deciding to throw to third and I just don't see that.I've seen plays like that where the throw is made even though the batter/runner is called out and that ends the inning. Players aren't waiting for the call.Besides all that, the idea that baseball is a continuous game with only stops between innings is one of the craziest notions I've ever heard. There are absolutely very distinctive stops to a play.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

No. You're telling me that the first baseman is waiting for the umpire's call before deciding to throw to third and I just don't see that.

I don't know, I haven't played baseball in a while. I guess it would make sense if the umpires had the choice to review a play at their discretion, and there discretion was based on whether or not the call going the other way would have led to a radically different outcome. This would include home runs and a lot of plays that involved only one runner. So, the Swisher calls last night (the pickoff at second base and the tag up) could have been reviewed and changed (they were both wrong). But something odd like a trapped ball would be forced to stay as ruled on the play. It would slow down the game a lot, and baseball is already a slow sport, so I don't see it happening. I don't see MLB sacrificing viewers by slowing down the game and sacraficing a little tradition for a more accurately called game.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

It would slow down the game a lot, and baseball is already a slow sport, so I don't see it happening.

I don't buy this premise either. Do it like football and give each manager a limited amount of challenges (maybe just two and you don't lose it if you're right) and put a replay umpire in the booth. Spend two minutes getting the call right. How much time is spent with the manager out there yelling at the umpire? I think the umpires are good enough where there wouldn't be that many plays that go to replay anyway.

[timwakefield 68]

On out/safe calls where instant replay might be needed, the fielder is always going to have the ball in his possession, so no, runners aren't constantly trying to get to the next base.

Well I think you misinterpreted my meaning somewhat. I didn't mean that runners were always succeeding in taking an extra base, or that they attempt it often. My point was that it is always on their mind (if they're a decent baserunner), and they will move up whenever they see an opportunity. They're also constantly bluffing, trying to take the fielders' attention away from another runner perhaps, or to try to force an unnecessary throw across the diamond. Basically my point was just that the ball is usually live following a play, and using instant replay for those types of plays (where the ball definitely did not go over the fence) would dramatically change the pace and the nature of the game.

Scenario:Runner at first, nobody out. Runner stealing, batter bunts the ball. Third baseman charges the ball and makes the throw to first and it's extremely close. Meanwhile the runner that was stealing tries to make it all the way to third. Does the first baseman stop to hear the out/safe call before making the throw to third?Is your concern that the batter would try to advance to 2nd if he was safe?The only issue I see is if the umpire calls him out and then the first baseman throws the ball away. But I can't think of a play that happens a lot that instant replay can't sort out.

Well in your scenario, the 1b should make the throw anyways, if there are no outs. Why the hell wouldn't he? The play at first is irrelevant to the other runner, with no outs. Here's an example of how a very similar scenario would get screwed up royally by instant replay:Same situation, but 2 outs. Close play at first, ump calls him out, so the runner who was stealing second pulls up on his way to third, since the third out was recorded and everybody is heading back to their dugouts to switch sides. Instant replay then reverses the call, and the batter is safe at first. The runner though...would there have been a play at third? Who knows? It never had a chance to happen, because the inning had appeared to be over. The only way to reconcile this would be to have everybody play every single "close" out as if it was fair or safe or whatever, and then take it back afterwards if necessary. And that would be....awful.

No. You're telling me that the first baseman is waiting for the umpire's call before deciding to throw to third and I just don't see that.

With no outs it's immaterial - he is always going to make the throw if he thinks he can get an out. But with 2 outs there wouldn't even be a play at third. The 1b hears "OUT" the instant after he catches the ball, and the inning is over. Any runners left on base are now gone....until the call gets reversed and everything gets fucked, and nobody knows what base the other runner should be on. Should we flip a coin to decide if he was gonna be safe or out at third? There's just no way to make it work. I mean, I really think I'm right on this. Like, you came up with a reasonably common scenario and showed how instant replay wouldn't hurt the play, and I simply changed the number of outs in that scenario and it immediately becomes impossible to reverse a call.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

Well in your scenario, the 1b should make the throw anyways, if there are no outs. Why the hell wouldn't he? The play at first is irrelevant to the other runner, with no outs.

Oh hey, look at that, you made my point. Thanks.

Here's an example of how a very similar scenario would get screwed up royally by instant replay:Same situation, but 2 outs. Close play at first, ump calls him out, so the runner who was stealing second pulls up on his way to third, since the third out was recorded and everybody is heading back to their dugouts to switch sides. Instant replay then reverses the call, and the batter is safe at first. The runner though...would there have been a play at third? Who knows? It never had a chance to happen, because the inning had appeared to be over. I mean, I really think I'm right on this. Like, you came up with a reasonably common scenario and showed how instant replay wouldn't hurt the play, and I simply changed the number of outs in that scenario and it immediately becomes impossible to reverse a call.

You watch football, right? Sometimes the referee blows a play dead when he shouldn't have. The solution is to make things as right as they can, not to just pretend an error wasn't made.In your scenario, what do you think the hitting team would prefer: the out to stand and their inning is over or the out call to be overturned with the downside being that the runner that was going to third has to go back to second?

[timwakefield 68]

In your scenario, what do you think the hitting team would prefer: the out to stand and their inning is over or the out call to be overturned with the downside being that the runner that was going to third has to go back to second?

That would make the game unwatchable. One of the beautiful things about baseball is the way the game is paced. Pitch after pitch after pitch, and then finally something crazy-exciting happens. Overturning calls and requiring automatic advances or retreats on the basepaths would detract from that. Baseball is an imperfect sport. Balls and strikes are never absolutes.This is what I should have used as an example:Your exact scenario. No outs. Bunted up the third base line with the runner going, the catcher comes out and fields the ball and on a close play the batter is called out at first. The runner stealing second (let's call him Runner) is easily into third standing up, and he thinks the catcher might be snoozing, having come out to field the ball and not realized that there is now a man on third and nobody guarding home. Runner makes a move to go, but realizes that it's a bad idea. But...he's gone too far, and he's got himself caught in a goddam rundown like an idiot. Anyways he's out. Soooo, then they go ahead and reverse the call at first on instant replay. The batter (now safe at first) would surely argue that he would have moved up to second on the pickle, but it's not automatic or anything. So...what happens?My point is not that there is no reasonable answer to the questions about where the runners should be after a reversed call - my point is that reversing those calls and forcing the runners to do a certain thing would detract from the enjoyment I get from watching a game, in an extremely major way. It would fundamentally alter certain strategies that have been bred and studied and experimented on etc etc for the last 150 years or whatever.

[JoeyJoJo 18]

That would make the game unwatchable. One of the beautiful things about baseball is the way the game is paced. Pitch after pitch after pitch, and then finally something crazy-exciting happens. Overturning calls and requiring automatic advances or retreats on the basepaths would detract from that. Baseball is an imperfect sport. Balls and strikes are never absolutes.

You make it seem like this sort of thing would be happening every couple of innings when I think one of these crazy scenarios we're coming up with would happen once every couple of weeks.

This is what I should have used as an example:My point is not that there is no reasonable answer to the questions about where the runners should be after a reversed call - my point is that reversing those calls and forcing the runners to do a certain thing would detract from the enjoyment I get from watching a game, in an extremely major way. It would fundamentally alter certain strategies that have been bred and studied and experimented on etc etc for the last 150 years or whatever.

There's really no realistic scenario you can come up with where not overturning the wrong call is a better result for the team on the wrong side of the call. Maybe it's not the ideal result, but it's a better result.I also think that the "we should do it this way because that's how we've always done it" philosophy is a bad way to run a sport/business/society.But I think we've probably reached the agree to disagree stage of the discussion.

[timwakefield 68]

You make it seem like this sort of thing would be happening every couple of innings when I think one of these crazy scenarios we're coming up with would happen once every couple of weeks.There's really no realistic scenario you can come up with where not overturning the wrong call is a better result for the team on the wrong side of the call. Maybe it's not the ideal result, but it's a better result.I also think that the "we should do it this way because that's how we've always done it" philosophy is a bad way to run a sport/business/society.

Well I think we're definitely also looking at it from different perspectives. I'm not too concerned about the team getting screwed by bad calls. Bad calls are damn aggravating of course, but I'm not looking at it from a 'make it right' point of view. I'm looking at it as: 'this would make the game seem much less 'natural' (for lack of a better term).' Not that one of us is correct and the other is incorrect though.

But I think we've probably reached the agree to disagree stage of the discussion.

I disagree to disagree!

[JoeyJoJo 18]

I disagree to disagree!

But I think we can agree that the Yankees need to lose.

[timwakefield 68]

But I think we can agree that the Yankees need to lose.

Something we can all agree on! Well, except stupid LLY.

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Something we can all agree on! Well, except stupid LLY.

Yaaaba Daaaaba Dooooooo!