User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 1.2893 seconds
82 querie(s) executed
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Politi: Umpire who blew call in NY Yankees’ victory over Twins says ‘there is no excuse’
“I think I may have been looking too closely at it.” Guffugginfaw.
Phil Cuzzi knows what you were thinking. He was standing right there, barely 10 feet away, with an unobstructed view. He saw the ball curve down the left-field line and bounce. He is an umpire with decades of experience, working at the highest level in his sport.
How the heck did he miss that call?!
“Unless you umpire, you can’t possibly understand,” Cuzzi told The Star-Ledger in a phone interview Saturday night. “It happens. It happens at the worst possible time. And it happened to me.”
Cuzzi, a Belleville native who still lives in Nutley, had just landed in Minneapolis. He’ll be back on the job for Game 3 of the division series Sunday night, and he knows the Metrodome crowd won’t be kind.
...Cuzzi had called it foul, negating a leadoff double, and he spent much of the next 24 hours trying to figure out what happened. Part of it, he thinks, was playing an unnatural position — baseball only uses umpires along the outfield foul lines in the postseason and for the All-Star Game.
“We’re not used to playing that far down the line,” Cuzzi said. “The instant the ball is hit, we usually start running. I think I may have been looking too closely at it. I never had a feel for where the left fielder was on the play.”
Repoz
Posted: October 10, 2009 at 10:31 PM | 98 comment(s)
Related News: General, Minnesota, NY Yankees
Related News: General, Minnesota, NY Yankees
My Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: MLB, Granderson join anti-obesity effort
(102 - 11:15pm, Feb 09)
Last: Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia
(102 - 11:15pm, Feb 09)
Last: Jolly Old St. Neck Wound, Marching Through Georgia
Newsblog: MLB: Mays' life and legend transcend statistics
(81 - 11:00pm, Feb 09)
Last: Misirlou had a hedge back home in the suburbs
(81 - 11:00pm, Feb 09)
Last: Misirlou had a hedge back home in the suburbs
Newsblog: Hardball Talk: Gleeman: Lenny Dykstra is back with some more can't miss investment advice
(131 - 10:51pm, Feb 09)
Last: Zuvella!
(131 - 10:51pm, Feb 09)
Last: Zuvella!
Newsblog: Sam Hutcheson's Top 11 Sabrenerd Baseball Dork's* Basements
(20 - 10:43pm, Feb 09)
Last: baseball chick (now, with NEW blog)
(20 - 10:43pm, Feb 09)
Last: baseball chick (now, with NEW blog)
Newsblog: Cashman: No new pacts for big three
(14 - 10:01pm, Feb 09)
Last: Kyle C welcomes back our OBP Savior
(14 - 10:01pm, Feb 09)
Last: Kyle C welcomes back our OBP Savior
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2008 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Which is, of course, crucial to being able to decide which side of a line a ball hits.
Well, if he was staring intently at the fielder (and his glove) to see if he caught it, maybe he's not looking down to see the line?
I don't know. It's a terrible answer for a terrible call.
I'd rather he just make something up and say "I blinked." and he guessed wrong.
As an Angels fan, the worst part of the Doug Eddings 2005 debacle wasn't the ridiculous call itself, it was the Baghdad Bob post-game presser where they tried to pretend he didn't bone up the play. Still makes me crazy just thinking about it.
Where is New Jersey? A mere 12.56 miles as the crow flies from Yankee Stadium.
Who won the game due to Cuzzi's blown call? The Yankees.
We're through the looking glass here, people.
The article's interesting, though. Now I want to know why Cuzzi was fired as an MLB umpire in 1993, and why he had to start all the way back in A ball to get another shot.
Yes, the article is largely about his taking the long road back to the majors but the way it glosses over this is shoddy.
I see you were as impressed by the effort as I was. It's too bad it happened to "my" team. If it happened to some other squad, Eddings' story about his "mechanic" would have been Richard Pryor caliber.
Also Nathan's comments he made after the game about the call are a joke. It shouldn't even have gone that far.
Cuzzi was a minor league ump in 1993, one of those who is called up to fill in for MLB umps on vacation or who miss games due to injuries or other causes. He was never actually a MLB umpire, even though he worked 140 MLB games as a sub.
There's a certain percentage of minor league umpires whose contracts are not renewed each year because the supervisors don't feel that they have the ability to be a full-time MLB umpire. Otherwise, there simply wouldn't be enough entry level positions availble in pro ball for young umpires entering the game. Cuzzi's contract was not renewed after the 1993 season, and he was out of baseball for three years before getting a chance to start over again - and the second time, he made it.
Cuzzi admitted he made a mistake. Eddings lied about his screw up. Major League Baseball's representatives lied along with him. It was a disgrace. All to back up the sorriest excuse for a major league umpire that I've seen in my lifetime.
The worst part of the Doug Eddings call is that Angel fans are still whining about it four years later. If the Angels had bounced three curveballs in the left-handed batter's box in Joe Crede's at bat, the game would have gone to extra innings and nobody would remember the call.
1. What I'm asking about is the lying, which that link doesn't address. Did they lie as to whether the ball was in the dirt, or as to whether Eddings called him out?
2. Did Paul see the arm motion? If not, did he have any other reason to think Eddings had called him out? Or did he just think the ball didn't hit the dirt?
It's not only ridiculous it highlights a rapidly escalating problem that MLB HAD been addressing but has now allowed to gain new life, lack of umpire accountability.
There are no consequences. None. Someone in the Commish's office has decided to not hold any standard in place for the umpires. In such an environment their worst traits emerge. And worse yet, because slipshod performance is accepted during the season the umps cannot "pick up the pace" come the playoffs. You perform as you practice.
It's inexcusable that the Commissioner and his direct reports refuse to place any burden on the umps to "earn their keep".
As we saw in the 90's it will only get worse.
For every game that's turned around by a blatantly wrong call on the foul line or a bang-bang play on a tag, there are a dozen games that are altered by umpires like Chuck Meriwether throwing a pitcher or a batter completely off his game by changing the strike zone on him. And yet seemingly because the missed ball/strike calls are so frequent, we tend to excuse them as "part of the game," while calling for the head of any umpire who one time in a thousand blows a call in a highly visible "clutch" situation.
Needless to say, none of that excuses Cuzzi. But the problem he represents, while it can show up at spectacularly inopportune moments, is not nearly so bad as the structural problem represented by umpires with attitudes who make up their own rules as they go along.
Now, I agree that the personalized strikezones can be annoying, but acting as if the players had to guess if dishonest because he has been calling strikes that way for 20 years.
If Meriwether's been doing that for 20 years, they should have gotten rid of him 19 years ago. At the very least he should NEVER be behind the plate during any postseason game. A three year old could calls balls and strikes better than he did the other night.
EDIT: And of course I don't think that Meriwether is dishonest, or that he consciously favored the Twins the other night, even though they were the more frequent beneficiaries of his expanded zone. But some pitchers' repertoires are more easily adapted to some bogus strike zones than others, and in this case, Blackburn just happened to be one of the lucky ones.
But there's no doubt about the Cuzzi call. It was obviously 100 percent incorrect, even though Cuzzi was standing on top of it.
True, but when an umpire consistently calls balls and strikes incorrectly, a la Meriwether, it's a matter of definition, not a random slip. It's essentially insubordination, not myopia.***
But there's no doubt about the Cuzzi call. It was obviously 100 percent incorrect, even though Cuzzi was standing on top of it.
Also true, but that was a case of human error, which you can't eliminate by anything other than a replay system that opens up a whole new bag of worms. Put a retroactive camera on every similar call going back to the first year they had four or six umpires assigned to a game, and I'm sure you'd find a few hundred such miscalls.
But put a retroactive camera on Chuck Meriwether behind the plate and you'll come up with many thousands of missed pitches. And what do you think more affects the outcome of the vast majority of games?
***And if it is "only" myopia, he has no business being an umpire to begin with.
This is naive. Weather conditions certainly affect the flight paths of pitches and is something players have to account for on a daily basis. The same is true with respect to umpires. Pitchers and batters alike know how the strike zones of the umpires -- this is undoubtedly true of playoff umpires as well.
So long as that strike zone is consistent from hitter to hitter, it may not be perfect, but it certainly isn't unfair for one team versus the other. When you have umpires missing calls like Cuzzi's -- and there are no means to correct those errors -- that's a far bigger issue than an umpire who consistently allows pitchers 3" off the corner to LH hitters.
I don't know if he screwed one team more than another, but he has no business being a playoff umpire and probably not a major league ump either.
It's the exact same data set as Pitch F/X, K-Zone, etc.
I'm not quite sure I understand what this means. Here's the interpretive issue I hope somebody can help me with:
I watched called strikes during both Swisher and Matsui's strikeouts (I think those were the ones, and they both ended on called third strikes, which generally seemed to incite TBS' staff to show the graphic in question) and got the impression from the TBS broadcast that, based on a 17 inch plate, there were called strikes a good 5-6" off the plate. But looking at the pitch-by-pitch on MLB Gameday, those pitches look substantially closer - particularly the third strike from Swisher's strikeout.
I feel pretty confident that I'm seeing a difference. Where is it coming from?
I noted similar differences comparing TBS to the PitchFX data at Brooks Baseball.
I think most people realize that. But it would be more understandable if Cuzzi didn't see the ball deflect off the glove and it landed foul. The fact that it hit the glove and still landed a foot fair is significant, since it obviously wasn't deflected back toward the field of play.
This argument makes me angry. What happens afterward is immaterial. No team is good enough to beat both the other team and the umpires. When an umpire makes calls that are this egregious the call costs them the game. The fact that this is not literally true in no way mitigates the fact that it is true in any meaningful interpretation of the word.
It is Cuzzi's fault the Twins lost that game just like it is Eddings fault that the Angels lost that game. Trying to share the blame when there is no need is a major error of moral reasoning.
That is bunk.
If Cuzzi makes the call correctly, the Twins get one run. That's it. Mauer scores instead of being stuck on 3rd. End of story.
Then when Teixeira homers, it's 4-4, and the Yankees have A-Rod and everyone else coming up. They Twins are way less than 50/50 to win the game at that point.
Cuzzi cost the Twins a significantly less than 50% chance of winning the game, that's about it.
Gaelen, like so many people on these Cuzzi threads, you're taking an empirical fact (the Twins and the Angels had plenty of other chances to win those games) and trying to transform it into a "moral" statement which somehow absolves Cuzzi, which isn't at all what we've been saying. "The Twins and Angels had no one to blame but themselves for losing" and "Cuzzi may well have cost the Twins and Angels the game" are NOT incompatible statements.
Of course unless Cuzzi were actually on the take (cue Oliver Stone), "morality" in any serious sense of the word doesn't really enter into this discussion at all, unless you view a human error of judgment as "immoral," which is kind of silly, to say the least.
The only thing I can think of that can help the umpires is for MLB to send them to tennis schools for some quick training as linesmen.
I have a ton of work today so I won't be around. But sipping morning coffee I saw this and I will say, I buy this a bit. These guys never work the OF lines and then, all of a sudden, in a nationally televised crucial game, there they are. It's an odd position and a new angle on the play. Also, given the number of blown OF line and fence calls we see (on a pct. basis), they don't seem as good out there as at their regular position.
It was a terrible call and he could just be making excuses, but it does seem like they might want to get these guys a bit more experience on the lines than they do.
In that case, let's start talking about the latest blown call to cost a team a win. I didn't see it (past my bedtime), but was the Utley non-call last night pretty bad?
But Joe is absolutely right, if you're assuming that the inning would have played out exactly the same way, you cannot be consistent without also assuming that Teixeira would have hit a home run.
The fact is that the Twins got Mauer to third base with nobody out and he did not score. You can't blame the ump for the loss. Just for being a lousy ump.
Nothing can be assumed. The ump blew a crucial call, and it could have changed the outcome of the game. Or not. We'll never know for sure. But the point is there shouldn't be any chance that a human error of that magnitude in a game that important would/could potentially influence the outcome. That's it. Nothing more or less.
Wait, I may have misinterpreted your point...
Jose, what if that same call had taken place in the ninth inning of a blowout? What if at that point, either the Twins or the Yankees had been ten runs ahead? Should every umpire who blows a call be suspended, or only when he blows a potentially "game changing" call in a "crucial" game? Should the same call in a late September O's-Blue Jays game also result in a suspension?
----------------------
the point is there shouldn't be any chance that a human error of that magnitude in a game that important would/could potentially influence the outcome. That's it. Nothing more or less.
You're talking about replay here, but how do you prevent managers from using challenges to freeze the opposing pitcher and disrupt his rhythm? What would be the penalty for a failed challenge that would correspond to an NFL team's loss of a timeout?
The only way I can see a replay not producing all sorts of negative side effects would be if it followed these guidelines:
No challenges by a team. Put an umpire in the replay booth and give him the unilateral power to overrule a call immediately, with no delay or argument---his decision would be binding. And all borderline calls would result in the original decision left standing.
That would eliminate the gamesmanship factor, and 99% of the unnecessary delay. It would have given Mauer his double without producing the usual spectacle that often disrupts the entire rhythm of the game.
EDIT: And it's important that there would be only ONE umpire in the replay booth, hermetically sealed from the outside world of conflicting opinion. Under those conditions, the play could nearly always be reviewed and decided within a minute or less. Without that, it's a case of too many cooks in the kitchen.
On the "bang-bang" plays on steals or first base I would agree.
But on egregious miss on the home plate call in the Twins/A's game, the obvious animus between the Braves and an umpire and the call on Friday I would disagree.
The league reassigned umpires when an obvious "tiff" broke out between an ump and team as one example. Even the appearance of conflict caused the league to reassign Bill Haller.
Sure, there were still some known "feuds". But Jocko Conlan and Durocher was tempered by the fact that Leo fought with EVERYBODY.
The overall performance level went up after the Phillips incident and Alderson holding umps to a standard with league support. Once Sandy left this focus has drifted and now fans are left with officating crews that are lazy, sloppy and belligerent.
Yuck......
I thought the umpiring was consistently lousy this year, but I'm often torn between thinking that the umps are actually getting worse and dismissing my reactions as recency bias. Still...it did seem like there were an unusually large number of terrible calls in the games I watched this year.
EDIT: I didn't see Misirlou's post. I was up really late last night....
It was tough to see in real time, but obvious on replay. An infield umpire might have had a better chance to see it than the home ump. Utley seemed to make an instinctive decision to hustle out the ball rather than hope the umps would call the foul if he stopped. [EDIT: Or perhaps he was afraid the decision would be that he was hit outside the batter's box in fair territory, and thus called out.] After all that, the Rox could have/should have thrown him out and headed off the run. It was a tough throw for the catcher through the runner, and it took about four replays before I was convinced that Helton's foot came off the bag an instant before he caught the ball.
That said, I don't know if the umpiring is worse than it once was. What I am certain of is that advancements in technology are pressuring all sporting events in a direction I can't stand. As horrible as was Meriwether's balls and strikes the other night, the ostensible "injustice" of it is only heightened by TV replays designed to "inform" us that he was failing at his job. Really, he wasn't. He was inconsistent, missed some calls, and "his" zone was outside the parameters of the ideal zone. But all that ought to be preserved from our consumption and left to baseball to monitor and police. For us, it just creates static, focusing us away from the great baseball we're watching and toward the mechanization of everything. There will be instant replay in baseball. There will be automated strike zones. It's just a matter of time; the forces here are inexorable. Will baseball be better for it? I don't think so. (One of the things I love about athletes - and I mean these worldclass athletes - is that they know error is part of this and rarely make excuses.) I don't think replay has helped football. I think it's made it a worse sport even as it's become a better game in the betting sense b/c human error is supposedly being minimized.
And, yes, that's a rant. Apologies in advance.
Yep, they leave that to their fans, and to Whitey Herzog.
Not mine. I didn't see the game, but an expanded strike zone is a good one in my book. In fact, if a standardized or automated strike zone went further to reward disciplined, TTO style hitters, then such a development would be a net negative for my enjoyment of the game. I like baseball where guys are encouraged to swing the damn bat.
We can't know that the inning would have played out the same way had Cuzzi done his job properly. But I think a fair analysis assumes that the inning would have played out the same way.
We can certainly blame the ump for robbing the Twins of a fair chance at the game. That's all that's needed, in a fair and objective analysis.
Not mine. I didn't see the game, but an expanded strike zone is a good one in my book. In fact, if a standardized or automated strike zone went further to reward disciplined, TTO style hitters, then such a development would be a net negative for my enjoyment of the game. I like baseball where guys are encouraged to swing the damn bat.
That's fine, but encourage it by changing the strike zone in the rule book, not by letting each umpire establish his own personal one. The most important thing is to make the zone consistently called across the board.
This.
Because the events that got him from first to third would likely have gotten him from second to home.
This makes no sense. The Twins are not at all to blame for Cuzzi blowing the call.
No. I don't mind an ump having his strike zone, as long as it's reasonable (and a few inches off the plate is reasonable to me) and consistent. I think a standardized strike zone would ultimately be a negative for the baseball it would produce. I respect the hell out of ultra disciplined hitters, and obviously want my team to employ as many as possible based on the way the game is played. But aesthetically, I find them unappealing, and any rule change that rewards that style is not a good direction.
This is monumentally stupid or dishonest.
And automatic calls how? Plate umpire watching a blackberry-type device (can't wait for transmission failure!) and that little extra delay an advantage to runners.
My favorits blown call is 69 NL playoffs, Braves catcher "tags" a Met at the plate with his glove while holding the ball out in his bare hand. Picture that evening on the back page of the Daily News.
I don't think "time consuming" is a very strong argument. You're talking about maybe one play a game that needs to be reviewed, at the cost of an extra five minutes or so - balanced against the sheer unfairness of a team playing a whole season to get to this point and then watching the other team benefit from a blown call.
Not at all. In talking about Cuzzi's blown call and the effect that had on the game, it makes no sense to say "but the Twins made boneheaded blunders." One concept is not related to the other.
I don't think "time consuming" is a very strong argument. You're talking about maybe one play a game that needs to be reviewed, at the cost of an extra five minutes or so - balanced against the sheer unfairness of a team playing a whole season to get to this point and then watching the other team benefit from a blown call.
OK, Ray, but what's your objection to the replay method I outlined in #63 above, which wouldn't take nearly as long but would still rectify the Cuzzi-like calls? Why do you need five minutes and a goddam committee to overrule a decision that was as obviously incorrect as Friday night's?
(1) Cuzzi made a horrible call he alone is responsible for and which may have influenced the outcome; and
(2) The Twins play also affected the outcome; Cuzzi is not solely responsible for their loss.
It's laughable or pitiable (sp?) that you continue to advance some purported connection on others that they are not making.
What makes people think that Mauer scores? He got to third with nobody out and didn't score, why are we assuming that it would have been different if he started on second?
Because the events that got him from first to third would likely have gotten him from second to home.
Mauer likely goes to third on the next hit after his if he doesn't have to pause to let it go through and/or doesn't have the bum hit. Also, if the hip hadn't been bugging him, he probably scores from second on the third hit of the inning. That slip and fall earlier in the game proved very costly. Of course, if he doesn't have the bum hip, perhaps he homers in the 11th.
Replay on fair/foul non-HRs will be very time consuming, because all of a sudden any ball withint 5 feet of the line will be ruled fair and the play will play out, then get reversed. If the ump calls foul, he's effectively blowing the play dead (to use NFL vernacular). That can't be reversed. So he won't blow it dead unless he is dead, 100% certain the ball is foul, meaning it landed on the peanut vendor in the second deck. Even then Cuzzi will be confused.
Good point, and all the more reason that if we ever did go to a replay system (which as JC and others have noted, has its own aesthetic problems), that it be the quickest and least bureaucratic one imaginable, with one ump in the booth having instant unilateral override powers, with no challenges allowed from either side. We want to see a baseball game, not a court case.
The "connection" is that when someone tries to talk about (1), others bring up the irrelevancy of (2).
What I'm objecting to is the notion that the Twins don't have moral standing to point out that Cuzzi's call may have cost them the game since they made their own mistakes.
I didn't say anything about a committee. Anyway, in #63 you say this:
I don't see this as a big issue. The manager can go out there now and "disrupt the pitcher's rhythm" with a five minute tantrum. At least by reviewing the call you spend those five minutes productively. And if you think a manager is arguing in bad faith to disrupt the pitcher you can eject him.
Not that I think "disrupting the pitcher" is that big of a deal.
Well, you'd still need a way for this umpire to stop play in time (i.e. stop the next pitch from being thrown) if he sees something called incorrectly.
And under your proposed system you'd have no formal "challenges" by a team, but in practice all a manager would have to do is go out there and argue for a few minutes until the replay booth umpire signals that the play should be reviewed.
Well, you'd still need a way for this umpire to stop play if he sees something called incorrectly.
He'd have a bank of cameras in the booth with him, and the cameras themselves would enable him to look, decide, and press a button in a matter of a few seconds after the play had run its course. There is absolutely no objective need for further delay, other than a manager's psychotherapy, which should be addressed by a psychotherapist on his own time and his own dime.
And under this system you'd have no formal "challenges" by a team, but in practice all a manager would have to do is go out there and argue for a few minutes until the replay booth umpire signals that the play should be reviewed.
You could easily outlaw such arguments, since they'd have no point. You could put such arguments in the category of ball and strike disputes---cause for immediate ejection.
Not that I think "disrupting the pitcher" is that big of a deal.
That's simply an aesthetic disagreement that there's no way to resolve. We each have our own set of priorities.
Fair enough. But what about my point that managers can already, every night of the week, go out and "disrupt the pitcher" by initiating a phony argument?
As for Andy's proposal for replay, I'll repeat what I said earlier: it's a terrible idea (regardless of potential "unfairness.") It's workable on fair/foul HRs, where the ball is dead either way and there's no question what the outcome of the play would be; it's not workable in any other situation. Setting aside delays, IR in any other situation would require umpires to guess where runners should be placed; it would turn baseball from a player-centric sport to an umpire-centric one like the NFL.
That they do, but that's not an argument for encouraging and abetting the trend.
Look, I can live with replay and I can live without it, since in the long run it's going to even out either way, and IMO bad calls are just part of the game.
But if you're going to have replay, then it only compounds the bad side if you don't make it as swift and surgical as possible. Which can be done very nicely and neatly with the system I outlined above.
See my post above, David. I'm not at all arguing favor of replays, and all of your points against them are very well taken. I'm only saying that if you have to have some sort of replay system, then at least make it as non-disruptive as possible.
Yes, admittedly this is a problem with me saying it will only take 5 minutes.
Well, in a situation where the ball lands fair (say, down the left field line) and is called foul, you don't have to give the hitter a double on reversal. You don't have to give any runners two bases, or guess where they might have ended up. You can just give the hitter a single and give the runners one base each. No guessing involved. Does this completely rectify the error? Probably not. But it will at least be more fair than the situation where the hitter is given a strike instead of a hit.
Which is exactly what happened to Maurer anyway, although it's true that this would have obviated the need for him to repeat his performance.
Does this completely rectify the error? Probably not. But it will at least be more fair than the situation where the hitter is given a strike instead of a hit.
It would be hard to argue with that, but if that had been the replay-driven ruling on Friday, you'd still see Gardenhire and the entire Twins team out there arguing, three day stubble and all, and the Yanks would be sitting in the dugout with shit-eating grins on their faces.
Sure we can, if we're trying to conduct a thought experiment as to how the inning might have played out had Cuzzi not blown the call. Nobody is claiming to know for a fact what would have happened. It's just a thought experiment.
And go ahead and assume that Tex would have homered. So?
I'm trying to figure out your point here, Larry. Is it that the Twins weren't hurt by the blown call? If that's not your point, what is?
In #57 you wrongly characterize the issue as whether the ump is responsible for the loss. But that's not the issue at all. The issue is simply whether the ump hurt the Twins' chances to win.
You wrote in #57:
The fact is that the Twins got Mauer to third base with nobody out and he did not score. You can't blame the ump for the loss. Just for being a lousy ump.
That is, of course, nonsense, in that it manages to entirely miss the point, as well as bringing up irrelevancies. The ump can be blamed for hurting the Twins' chances to win. Do you dispute that?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main