Are you kidding me?

JMB · October 12, 2005 at 3:29 pm · Filed Under General baseball 

There are two baseball games tonight, Game 1 of the NLCS and Game 2 of the ALCS. They’re both on at the same time, on the same channel. FOX, MLB, you guys are the best. No, really. I’d much rather have you tell me what game to watch than be given the choice. You guys know best, anyway. Thanks!

Comments

145 Responses to “Are you kidding me?”

  1. John in L.A. on October 13th, 2005 12:31 pm

    Oh, I know you were, Knuckles. My disdain is directed entirely at the umpire staff and ESPN. Sorry if that wasn’t clear.

    That press conference was so ugly an example of responisibility-avoidance and political double-speak it made me itch.

    I felt like baseball just got invaded by a senate confirmatin hearing.

  2. Knuckles on October 13th, 2005 12:34 pm

    I’ll be honest, man, I loved every second of it. About the only way to get people to watch an Angels/White Sox series is to have some sort of controversy involved (let me say, for the record, that I’m also loving the fact that no baseball is being played on the East Coast right now).

  3. John in L.A. on October 13th, 2005 12:39 pm

    Re: No east coast teams.

    Me too, man, me too. From the point early in the season when it was clear the mariners were going nowhere (how early was it clear? June? April 6th? Spring training? The second they announced the pitching rotation?) hoping the Yanks and the Red Sox were elininated was all I had left to root for.

    As to the call… As I said, I vaguely wanted Chicago to win. But the call was so egregiously bad…

    But I guess you’re right. That blown call is the only reason I am even talking about baseball today.

  4. simon (in L.A.) on October 13th, 2005 12:45 pm

    Derek, I’m not even saying that I’m not wrong. That’s you. I’m just wondering why you’d (meaning you and Dave) get so defensive with the personalized attacks, and pointing out that these smears can generally cut both ways (“He’s wrong. We all know that” right next to “appeal to numbers,” and calling me a “prick” in the same sentence as “go do your own research.”)
    A strike and an out are both gestured with a closed fist. He probably should have been more adamant about the ball being in the dirt. Who cares? He doesn’t have to.

  5. domovoi on October 13th, 2005 12:47 pm

    No, his strike call is very different than his out call. It’s an outstretched hand with the palm down.

    Saying you made an “ad numerum” isn’t a smear, because it’s true.

  6. John in L.A. on October 13th, 2005 12:50 pm

    Simon… I can in no way speak for Derek or Dave, but if you want to know why you got the reaction you got, re-read the tone of your first posts.

    It is not a matter of disagreement.

  7. DMZ on October 13th, 2005 12:50 pm

    Well, lemme see here.

    You say you despise the Angels, and at length espouse a series of incorrect and shifting opinions on how stupid they are for being victimized by shoddy umpiring. When challenged, you escalate the annoyingness. It goes on from there.

    Now as to getting defensive over personal attacks, well, that’s the “non sequitor” fallacy. Feel free to bust out the old “ad nauseum” next.

  8. Dave on October 13th, 2005 12:52 pm

    Read your posts, Simon again, Simon. Your first one, I would have deleted, honestly. It’s two paragraphs of rambling crap not suitable for a 3rd grade message board. After I point out that your hatred of the Angels ruins your credibility, you get all pissy and try to turn the conversation to your opinion of me. Then, when others refute your claims, you turn into full prick mode (“Then what’s the ’strike’ call look like, dude?”).

    You came in here, acted like a total jerk about a situation you’re in the wrong about, and got called on it.

  9. simon (in L.A.) on October 13th, 2005 12:56 pm

    I’m not shifting. I’m adding onto. I’m saying how stupid they are for blaming the umpires for shoddy baseball.

  10. Knuckles on October 13th, 2005 12:58 pm

    To Simon’s credit, I do believe that this is the first time I’ve ever seen anyone write: “ESPN loves the Angels”, and mean it.

  11. DMZ on October 13th, 2005 12:58 pm

    hee hee hee

  12. simon (in L.A.) on October 13th, 2005 12:59 pm

    I have a high opinion of you. That’s why I come here. I was pretty excited about the game and the reactions I’ve heard. I apologize for being annoying.

  13. Dave on October 13th, 2005 12:59 pm

    Simon is working his way into posting lore. Pretty soon, he’ll be the USSM equivalent of Idiot Mike from asbs-m days.

  14. John in L.A. on October 13th, 2005 1:02 pm

    Given that Simon (in L.A.)’s position has been vigorously refuted and yet he (without actually countering the arguments) still maintains his position…

    I would like to take this opportunity to point out that even though we share the same last name, we are not related.

    He must come from the Encino In L.A.’s, a suspicious Valley offshoot of the proud In L.A. family line.

  15. Knuckles on October 13th, 2005 1:03 pm

    Perhaps you’re parenthetically related.

  16. Knuckles on October 13th, 2005 1:05 pm

    John: I’m actively rooting for Chicago (not that it’s doing me any good). I don’t much care for them, to be honest, but the Angels have done their job and eliminated the Yanl. They can go have a seat now.

  17. John in L.A. on October 13th, 2005 1:07 pm

    And then Simon showed an underlayer of class and the In L.A.’s welcomed him back with open arms.

    I’ll get the fatted calf, Simon, you Tivo Mike Scosia’s pre-game explanations.

    _____

    By the way… mildly interesting. Well, maybe not even mildly, but an unattributed personal mini-bio of Eddings…

    http://sportsbybrooks.com/dougeddings.html

  18. DMZ on October 13th, 2005 1:08 pm

    I want the Angels to win, because I can’t stand the misplaced, bizarre Guillen-worship/small-ball hype over the White Sox.

  19. DMZ on October 13th, 2005 1:10 pm

    If only Simon had managed to work in Ryan Howard somehow.

  20. Knuckles on October 13th, 2005 1:12 pm

    Ozzie’s a freak, of that there is no question. I just want a little variety in the World Series. Astros/White Sox, creating a WS matchup even greater those in 1982 and 1997.

  21. John in L.A. on October 13th, 2005 1:16 pm

    DMZ… Good point. Every time I’ve watched him manage this season, it reminds me of my crazy uncle who got rich in a sudden flurry of insane investments.

    Everybody in the family thought he was a moron his whole life, then he pulls off a string of ridiculous ventures and ends up rich and pompous.

    Now, a few years later, he manages a trailer park because he gets free rent.

    The only reason I vaguely root for the Sox is that I am a Mariner fan in L.A. and I am still mildly irritated by the ridiculous name change from the Anaheim Angels.

  22. Dave on October 13th, 2005 1:18 pm

    Sportsbybrooks.com claims to be the most widely read blog on the internet?

    Umm, no.

  23. DMZ on October 13th, 2005 1:20 pm

    Can you prove that’s not true? Therefore, it must be true!

    (I’m crazy with the logical fallacies today)

  24. Evan on October 13th, 2005 1:24 pm

    There is one team in each AL division that I genuinely dislike.

    East: Yankees
    Central: White Sox
    West: Angels

    It was a bad year for me. However, my opinion of the Angels softened considerably when they signed Vlad. I love Vlad.

    Anyway, I’m cheering for the Sox. I’d love to see how low scoring an Astros-White Sox world series could be. And the Angels would be insufferable if they won again. And Ozzie’s promised to retire if the Sox win the series, and that’s a plus for everyone.

  25. Knuckles on October 13th, 2005 1:27 pm

    “And Ozzie’s promised to retire if the Sox win the series, and that’s a plus for everyone.”

    Damn fine point, Evan.

  26. LB on October 13th, 2005 1:29 pm

    I think:

    1) Every White Sox batter ought to get tagged with gusto on every third strike for the rest of the series, regardless of whether there’s a man at first and the number of outs. If they have a problem, let them talk to AJ. And,

    2) AJ ought to see a few pitches up and in during every at bat for the rest of the series. AJ is an A-hole. In the play he cited last year in San Francisco he actually dropped the ball!

  27. Jeff Nye on October 13th, 2005 1:30 pm

    Re: John in L.A./#92:

    Great minds think alike?

  28. Mike Snow on October 13th, 2005 1:37 pm

    Sportsbybrooks.com claims to be the most widely read blog on the internet?

    Sports blog. Not that I necessarily buy it – the blog ranking game is a mess from the approaches I’ve seen, both subjective and objective – but it’s a little more plausible.

  29. DMZ on October 13th, 2005 1:42 pm

    Every White Sox batter ought to get tagged with gusto on every third strike for the rest of the series, regardless of whether there’s a man at first and the number of outs. If they have a problem, let them talk to AJ.

    This is an outstanding idea. Sock ’em in the head with the glove and then when they turn around, say “AJ told me to do that, go talk to your man.”

  30. msb on October 13th, 2005 1:43 pm

    #122–Dave said:”Sportsbybrooks.com claims to be the most widely read blog on the internet? Umm, no.”

    well, I see that it is either a canny self-promotion for an LA radio personality or a canny self-promotion through the use of babelicious babes

  31. Mike Snow on October 13th, 2005 1:46 pm

    Sock ‘em in the head with the glove

    Or… sock ’em with the glove in the place where AJ kneed Stan Conte.

  32. Jeff Nye on October 13th, 2005 2:03 pm

    Re: LB/#126:

    Even though you were suggesting it in somewhat of a flippant fashion, I don’t see any way that there /won’t/ be an emphatic tag on every called third strike when the White Sox are up to bat, for the rest of this series. I know I’d tell my catchers to do it, if I were the manager. Wonder if it’ll lead to any brawls.

  33. Mat on October 13th, 2005 2:20 pm

    Somewhere else today, I read another seemingly appropriate response would be for the Angels’ batters to run to first every time they strikeout. After all, you never know what those ‘mechanics’ might mean….

  34. Paul Molitor Cocktail on October 13th, 2005 2:26 pm

    Why stop at first?

    “Well, I saw the batter circle the bases, so I figured it must have been a home run.”

  35. Colm on October 13th, 2005 2:29 pm

    re Ozzie Guillen. I like the guy’s candour. He’s colorful, he’s entertaining. He seems as dumb as a brick, tactically, but Scoscia’s wrong a lot of the time too. Ozzie is funnier about it.

    Whichever of these teams win, you’ll hear of mis-placed guff about ‘small-ball’. The White Sox hit more homers than the Red Sox for Chrissakes. They are bad at stealing bases. They’re only playing small ball because Ozzie wants them too, not because they’re good at it.

    The Angels baffle me. I don’t understand how a team loaded with mediocre position players and over-rated pitchers manages to succeed. However I hope that their outstanding bullpen convinces a few other teams to follow their lead – home grown talent, no real need for Loogies.

  36. Xteve X on October 13th, 2005 2:41 pm

    Actually, the funny thing to me is that if StrikeGate doesn’t happen and the Angels win the game, Ozz is on the hot spot big time for smallballing his team right out of the ALCS. For those that aren’t Sox fans, I would counsel “just wait”. I’m sure Ozz will piss away 5 or 6 outs in the upcoming games by bunting guys over in the early innings or trying to steal 2nd base with such noted speedsters as Konerko and AJ.

  37. tede on October 13th, 2005 2:44 pm

    Does anybody remember the name of the White Sox catcher in Game 1 of the 2000 ALDS when Piniella went out to talk to Mike Cameron at 1B about Keith Foulke’s move to first? Cameron held at 1B for the pitchout and then stole second on the following pitch. The pitch after that was a change up that Edgar sent into the LF stands. This was followed by another HR by Olerud.

  38. msb on October 13th, 2005 3:35 pm

    um, you mean…. Josh Paul? 🙂

  39. Evan on October 13th, 2005 4:05 pm

    More than just tagging the Sox hitters with every K, the Angels hitters should run to first every time they strike out. Every time.

    Dare the umps to pull out those “making a travesty of the game” rules.

  40. LB on October 13th, 2005 5:54 pm

    $135: I don’t understand how a team loaded with mediocre position players and over-rated pitchers manages to succeed.

    I think it helps to play in the AL West. The only thing better would be to play in the NL West.

  41. LB on October 13th, 2005 5:59 pm

    #137: Does anybody remember the name of the White Sox catcher in Game 1 of the 2000 ALDS when Piniella went out to talk to Mike Cameron at 1B about Keith Foulke’s move to first?

    It was Josh Paul, who pinch ran for Charles Johnson, and I think that the discussion with Cameron was that the M’s bench recognized a “tell” when Paul was calling for a pitchout.

    You can see the game log at http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B10030CHA2000.htm.

    Postseason logs are indexed at http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/.

  42. LB on October 13th, 2005 5:59 pm

    #137: Does anybody remember the name of the White Sox catcher in Game 1 of the 2000 ALDS when Piniella went out to talk to Mike Cameron at 1B about Keith Foulke’s move to first?

    It was Josh Paul, who pinch ran for Charles Johnson, and I think that the discussion with Cameron was that the M’s bench recognized a “tell” when Paul was calling for a pitchout.

    You can see the game log at http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/B10030CHA2000.htm.

    Postseason logs are indexed at http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/.

  43. Colm on October 13th, 2005 11:19 pm

    Boy does that make me pine for that team. Edgar, A-Rod, Olerud, Mike Cameron, Buhner, Stan Javier and Mark McLemore for the bench. It’s a shame Moyer fell apart that year. One decent pitcher besides Freddy, and we could have got past the Yankees in the ALCS.

  44. Dave in Palo Alto on October 14th, 2005 5:46 pm

    The Onion’s take on the ALCS: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/41612

  45. who on October 18th, 2005 8:54 pm

    The catcher appears to look at the umpire before tossing the ball to the mound.
    How bout game 4 Konerko strikes out but is given another chance by the same up saying no swing as 1st base umpire… then homer. Molina comes up later has the same “check” swing and Eddings calls it a strike.
    No one seems to have seen AJ running inside the line, which acording to baseball rules, makes him out for affecting the play/throw in game 5. Yes the ball was not in the glove but he is out for affecting the throw. Why did no one see that? In fact if he ran where he was supposed to run Escobar would have had to throw to 1st instead of trying to tag him.