Printable View
Erm well in Rookie of the Year the Cubs have a 12 year old pitcher, in Major League Ceranno carries his bat arounf the bases, so Im not sure movies should be where you get baseball rules.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
The difference in this play would be : the ball did not come loose during the tag, but after the tag wheN Varitek fell over. It was VERY clear that that it was the collision with the ground that casued the ball to come loose not the collision with the runner.
I agree with everything you say here....but disagree that if the catcher is plowed over when a runner is headed home, and the catcher holds the ball and after hitting the ground it is VERY clear that the ball then comes loose, that the ruling would be the same. In fact, I have seen...and I think most with a non-biased mindset looking at it will agree they have seen situations just as the one I mention here in which the player was ruled safe.Quote:
Originally Posted by gRYFYN1
Again, this from a Sox fan. I feel the player should have been out, but the rule is not clarified whatsoever, and is often ruled the opposite way than it was ruled yesterday when it occurs at the plate.
I do actually agree with you on this, though, dickay. It's strange that two different rules seem to apply to the same basic event occurring.
Dude, I had no interest getting involved in a discussion with you, because I don't and never did disagree. You popped into the thread, quoted me, and said that I was "making it seem" like something that I didn't even discuss. And now you're trying to turn this dumb little argument around on to me?Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
See, right here:
That's in response to a post of mine that you quoted. But I guess you weren't talking about me? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Please. I'm sorry for getting off-topic, but I find it INCREDIBLY rude and immature that you pop into the thread and target me with a response, acting as if you disagree with what I said when you don't and as if I'm doing something that I'm not, and accuse me of "bias homerism" and then try to say that I'm "making it about me when it's not" or some crap, and act as if I instigated this.
The Angels should focus more on how they were incapable of getting hits when they needed to get them, and preventing the Red Sox from scoring.
Just a thought.
They need another bat
To compete with the rest of the AL, they do.Quote:
Originally Posted by michaelg123789
Much like the Cubs, the current Angels were built for the long haul, but not for winning series against great teams. The Angels are like an NL team. It's worked in the playoffs for them before (they won a WS on account of it), but it doesn't keep them from getting knocked around by superior teams most years.
The Red Sox are built to win in the playoffs. That's why they win in the playoffs.
This crap gets old quickly, someone tries to get opinions from others and it turns into a **** kicking contest.
And I'm not saying its anyone in particular but about half of the threads on this site ends up with someone calling someone else names or putting down someone else beliefs or thoughts.
If it wasn't for the updates(patches) for game, I wonder how many people would actually still be here. I for one wouldn't be, and I don't actually post here that often and probably won't anymore.
I guess I will get some childish backlashing for posting this.
With Torii Hunter, Vlad and Texieria they should have been able to match the Sox for power. Especially since they shut down Pedroia and papi isn't Papi anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
The truth is they were just unlucky.
Or if they were run by anti-sabrs they'd say they "Lacked intestinial fortitude, didn't know how to win and were unclutchy."
Yeah, you're right, for the most part. I'm sorry. There was no need for this nonsense. All I did was post what I thought the correct call for the play was. I'm honestly still completely baffled as to why there had to be any debate here, and why the post I made was attacked, considering nobody was disagreeing with anybody.
I don't know... Teixeira should have been the difference, and should have put the Angels right up there with the Sox. But he didn't. I guess I was somewhat incorrect in that I was mainly assessing the Angels pre-Teixeira. And the reason he was acquired was probably primarily so they could match up with the Sox or Rays when the postseason rolled around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
But I still think they need another bat. One that is better than Anderson and Hunter and even Vlad. One to go along with Teixeira. Or... two huge bats. One to replace Teixeira and one to go along with that bat.
The Angels were NINTH in the AL in SLG% this season. That simply isn't going to win you an AL playoff series. Granted, the Rays were only 8th in SLG, but they had a lower ERA and a higher OBP. So they were out-Angeling the Angels anyway...
You've got to be absolutely STACKED with power bats to make it through those tough AL playoffs.
The Angels aren't.
Nice point there Reade..
"...about half of the threads on this site ends up with someone calling someone else names or putting down someone else beliefs or thoughts."
Do you remember that about two days ago you called all Boston fans "extreme dicks"?
Oh good lord.
I give up.
houston, I really shouldn't continue to feed into this, but because you're 'baffled' I will try to politely explain exactly what occurred in a manner which I hopes will help you avoid these little spats you constantly get into. Sorry to all for going here, but what was a good thread has gone to he1l already, so WTF.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
1. a discussion about the play ensued, and the one who made the thread asked if anyone knew the actual rule, and posted that a radio show had issue with the call and basically said the rules were gray in this area.
2. You not once but twice in the next ten posts stated that the player was out (which i agree with) but did so in a manner that was unequivocal and at no point acknowledged what others did (in fact it appeared you were refutting) and that was that there is more to this call. Your posts took the stance that the radio show and those posting that the call raised questions were wrong. If that wasn't your position, you did a poor job explaining it.
3. I then posted that its not as black and white as you make it seem, and used you in the quote because your two posts were so definitive that it was black and white. Seem is a pretty soft word meaning thats what I read from your post. If you disagreed with that, you could have easily claried your position and we would have moved on, but you did this (see #4);
4. You then highlighted my post that it was black and white and you stated 'uh, no'.....which based upon your earlier posts appeared i'm sure to any reasonable person to be a sarcastic response solidifying your earlier statements that it was a black and white correct ruling.
5. I did make a post about you being a homer, which apparently was a mistake as for some reason I thought you were rooting for the sawx. It was not sarcastic in anyway, unlike your uh,no...and in fact read that I was surprised you were taking this stance because you are usually more level headed.
6. You then made the thread about you, stating I was picking a fight with you. This then went back and forth and led to where we are now.
Houston, what I see which often leads you down this type of road is that you have a way, maybe purposefully, of posting short open ended and often misleading responses and then get very argumentative and defensive when someone reads into them. I see it so much I honestly believe you do it on purpose. "Uh, no" after being very definitive in two prior posts which disagreed with my comments, and then coming in and stating you agreed with me all along really is kind of backhanded. You could have initially stated your full opinion at any point on the first page and avoided leading this thread down a juvenile 'stop picking on me' road.
This is a discussions thread, people are obviously going to try to develop an opinion of what you post so they can continue the discussion, and when your posts are misleading because you leave out half of your position it appears that you are looking to get combatitive when someone asks why you feel that way. How many times a week do you have to post something like, "I didn't say that" after someone reads into your post that you took a particular stance? Even when you post that, you often don't restate your position until well after an argument ensues!! Again, it appears to me because I've seen it so often that you do it purposely....and I speak for many when I ask that you stop it. If its not done purposely, take it as constructive criticism and try to be more precise when stating your opinion.
anyway back to the actual topic...Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
I agree fully with you. The angels need to make a run at resigning texeria and then find a big bat... the problem is... WHERE. I guess you could try and trade mathews but what are you going to get for him??? And who is out there to sign???
Frank Thomas, Giambi,
Adam Dunn may be the best bet.
Then how about this... Let Vlad and Anderson walk, that puts you down to 3 outfielders right??? Manny 3 years 65 million and Dunn 3-4 years 15 or so million each. I think their pitching is fine and those 2 leaving saves 30 million. Garland is also of the books at another 12 million. K-Rod leaves thats another 10 Million.
Questions tho... what do you do about a closer, and do they then weaken their pitching roo much if garland is not resigned?