What I want to know is this: why didn’t Fox Sports show us Ryan’s half swing from the traditional above-the-plate camera so we could decide for ourselves? I’ll say this: from the angle I saw and the angle ESPN was replaying it last night, there’s no way it looks like Ryan broke the plane of the plate.
...I’m not suggesting that FoxNews, MLB, Humber’s team, the Chicago White Sox, or the home team, the Seattle Mariners, are in some kind of conspiracy ...
No, to hell with that, that’s exactly what I’m suggesting. Can anyone offer a rational reason why, in the most important pitch of the young season, and a play that was instantly controversial, Fox didn’t show us the pitch from the camera angle that would have given us the clearest view?
Can it be that they know that Ryan successfully checked his swing, that the pitch should have been called ball four, that Runge blew the call, and that therefore Humber’s perfect game is tainted?
That’s what I think happened.
Saturday night I couldn’t find a single replay that featured an overhead view. I still can’t today. If anyone reading this can find one, I’d appreciate if they posted the evidence here.
Repoz
Posted: April 23, 2012 at 09:39 AM |
85 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
general
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.
1. GuyMcGuffin Posted: April 23, 2012 at 09:55 AM (#4113540)Exactly. Do you really think the ump wanted to be the one who ruined a perfect game by not calling a swing there? It was close enough that Ryan should have expected to be called out.
animated gif
The only reason Ryan is pissed is because the ball was so far outside, he looked goofy for swinging at it.
God, that pisses me off.
The only criticism you could make is that he could have left it up to the first base umpire, but it's possible the pitch was so far outside that he was able to get a better look at the swing than he ordinarily would in a check swing situation.
Don't be checking your swing in the 9th inning of a perfect game, meat.
Thanks for posting that, its the first time I've seen another angle, and yes, it looks a lot closer to a swing than the other view. FOX is actually doing Humber and the umpire a disservice by not showing that angle.
As it is, it was certainly close enough to a swing that no one should complain. Check swings that close are essentially tossups and I have no problem at all giving a tossup in that situation to the guy with a perfect game.
I don't know about the rest of you but, in my mind, Galaragga threw a perfect game. If there were clear evidence that the batter here didn't swing, I would think Humber didn't. However, the best you can say is it could go either way and often that call does go to the pitcher. So, pfft, close enough. He's perfect.
He's still bitter about it and rails against Bruce Froemming every chance he gets. If there were ever a jackass who I'm glad didn't get the benefit of the doubt, it's Pappas.
Shhh.... Don't say his name or he'll instantly show up to start ######## about Bruce Froemming... Before you know it, your daughter's knocked up, there's no beer in the fridge, and there are effigies of Bruce Froemming burning in your front yard.
And then there's the Saturday games that are played at 11:05 AM (BB-ref is incorrect) because the stadium has to host a college football game that evening.
Total number of games started that year by that day's Angels starting lineup:
5
77
83
154
21
7
7
36
71
Yeah, but you can't go by the actual rule, either, which basically says the ump can do whatever he wants.
Sean should have his servers taken away...
If the ball had been over the plate instead of outside, it would have struck the bat. What more do you need to see?
Then it became braeking the plane of the plate.
To my eyes, on replay 90 percent of checked swings look like the guy went too far (including plenty that didn't look that way in real time), so I'm not sure what the rule should be.
He's also embarrassed that he didn't run to first on the dropped third strike - or if he isn't, he should be.
Total swing. Those that pointed out that this looked bad only because the pitch was so far outside are correct, that's what makes some cling to the idea this wasn't a swing.
Every time they show the replay, and the commentators say, "nope he didn't swing", I think \"########, he most certainly did, he almost could have pulled that ball if he'd hit it".
If the bat comes even close to breaking the plane, I'd call it. I'd be a hitter's worst nightmare on check swings. If the plane of the bat is even close to 90 degrees to the plate, I'm wringing 'em up. Swing or don't. Don't expect mercy on checks.
I could never figure this one out, myself. It sure looks like he hardly moved, and that the pitch wasn't all that close.
I always assumed it must be some combination of the 1956 strike zone + not a very good TV angle.
The problem with what Ryan did is that he stood there is argued, as though that has ever worked on a strike call. If he had ran to first, it might have been a close play. It would have either been the most exciting finish to a perfect game in history, or the most excrutiating way to lose a perfect game in history.
Instead, you've got a guy ######## about a call, and not hustling the first. Which is odd, because isn't Ryan the guy who got to third on a walk?
Breaking up a perfect game by allowing the 27th batter to reach first on a strikeout?
You're kidding, right? Look at this tape, 2:54. the bat is squared up
This got me thinking. Suppose a pitcher comes into the 9th inning with say 18 strikeouts in the game and a big lead. He strikes out the first guy, then gets another out on a popup. Then he strikes out the final batter, but the catcher allows the ball to get by him so the runner could get to first and his pitcher would then have a chance to break the record. How do you think that would go down?
I think about as well as Michael Strahan's sack record. It would count (if the guy got to 21 on the next hitter), but the general feeling would be that it was kind of weak. And I'd be among those thinking that. Whenever you manipulate the sport's rules for the purpose of individual gain, you're going to get some criticism for it.
Infield single, I thought. But yes, that was him.
Ron Necciai had 25 strikeouts with two outs in the ninth in a minor league game in 1952. His catcher let a third strike get past him so he would have a chance at 27 K's, which he did get. It was a no-hitter too.
It would be idiotic, sure, but you'd still have to earn that strikeout.
It's not an exact parallel, but I disagree. If the game is manipulated to allow some personal milestone (Favre, Nykesha Sales at UConn), that accomplishment is going to be greeted with a certain amount of "yeah, but"). And the fact that the next K is not a given would be offset somewhat by the higher regard baseball fans (and the people who cover it) have for the record books.
Seems sorta part of the job you know, finding stuff on the Internet about baseball.
That said, echoing what every sane person on this thread has said: it was certainly close enough to ring him up.
How many outs did Fox show (since I'm in the .07 percent of the country where the White Sox-Mariners tilt was the featured game)? Just the last?
Or the other way it could happen: Pitcher has 18 strikeouts entering the 9th. He Ks the first two batters. The third one up is down 0-2, and then hits a pop-up in foul territory. Should the fielder drop it on purpose to give his pitcher a chance at history?
**Note: Keith Hernandez says that something very similar to this happened to him in a real game in the 1985 season. The fans were rooting for him to drop a foul ball to give Dwight Gooden a chance for another strikeout in the 9th inning of a blowout.
I don't know why it would be. If you're pulling the bat back as the pitch is approaching, that seems to fit the definition of not offering.
At least from where I was watching (Milwaukee), Fox went with a split screen for at least the first out of the inning (the Yankees/Red Sox game at that point was not all that close. And even if it was, a potential perfect game doesn't merit full screen?). More of a minor annoyance in the bigger issue of Saturday blackouts, but still.
To the best of my knowledge, the only games that would be blacked out on MLB TV would be games that would be blacked out even if you had Extra Innings. For example, if you're in a part of the country where Cincinnati Reds games are blacked out on the MLB Network, then you're not going to see them on Extra Innings either.
With that out of the way, and since MLB's definition of "regional teams" can be a bit bizarre, let me ask (just for the sake of confirmation):
Which teams were playing in the games that were blacked out?
Where are you located?
What was shown on MLB Network in place of the blacked-out games?
DB
Which teams were playing in the games that were blacked out?
Don't recall them all. Two involved Texas teams, one Houston and one Texas. Not playing anyone near me. I believe the other one was LAA and Detroit? Did they play recently? At first I wasn't really worried, just assuming it was weird blackout rules, so I haven't been taking notes. I plan to start. Though, honestly, don't know what I'll do about it. I'm not going to let them force me into Extra Innings.
Where are you located?
North Carolina. Usually we don't see Atlana, Washington and Baltimore.
What was shown on MLB Network in place of the blacked-out games?
Black screen.
DB
62. bearcat97 Posted: April 23, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4113845)
Did you try Channel 214 they have the backup game on.
No, didn't know about it.
EDIT: Coke to CWS.
Astros played DC 4/16, 4/17, 4/18, 4/19. If it was one of those games, DC's involvement would explain it. Can't explain the Rangers as they were playing the Red Sox and Tigers (unless you were trying to watch the Friday game that got postponed).
LAA hasn't played Detroit yet (unless I'm badly mis-reading this year's schedule). LAA has played Baltimore, so perhaps it was one of those games.
DB
And the obverse of this is true as well, if you have the bat in the strike zone when the ball crosses the plate the pitch should be called a strike. That's why 98% of the check swings should be strikes, unless you have tremendously strong wrists it is nearly impossible to start your swing and then stop it before the bat crosses the plate. I haven't seen the Ryan AB but I would be willing to bet that a replay, shown from the proper angle, would reveal a swing.
Witt was occasionally excellent, but here's a relevant comparison:
Career WAR:
Cone - 57.5
Buehrle - 46.6 and counting
Rogers - 46.7
Wells - 50.7
Martinez - 46.9
Witt - 19.7
Now, Witt had one year as good as or better than those other guy's best. But he had one and they had several. He doesn't belong in that group.
For those here who've been watching baseball since back then -- when exactly did the change occur?
It definitely was a nature of the times. I remember that it seemed like Frank Howard checked his swing every pitch.
Probably right aroung the time that the rule allowing the team in the field to appeal to the firstbase/thirdbase umpire to ask if the batter swung (previously the home plate umpire could request assistance on a checked swing on his own discrection, as opposed to now when the players on defense can demand an appeal when the home plate ump says "no swing").
DB
Does NOBODY know how to use thefucking internet who's above ####### 40 years old? God almighty. Or even on the production crew? Anybody? Pathetic.
If you do, the #1 thing you'll notice is the vast, vast difference in the check swing calls between 1965 and today. In that game, literally any time the batter made any attempt to check his swing, it was called a ball. You could even swing all the way through, and as long as the bat didn't touch your shoulder on the follow-through, it was considered "no swing."
Er, doesn't this go completely against the Larsen clip in #41, from 1956? Did it change, and then change back?
This is maddening.
I've only seen silent replays of this AB, but my first take was that Ryan stopped to argue because it looked like he definitely would have been safe at first and he didn't want to be that guy. Call me crazy.
Er, doesn't this go completely against the Larsen clip in #41, from 1956? Did it change, and then change back?
Perhaps the rule was different on the last pitch of a perfect game?
I think this is why I remembered the Mitchell swing differently: when I was a kid, that wasn't a swing.
But I agree, in 2012, that is definitely a "swing."
That's why I said he belongs in between. He's not close to Charlie Robertson either.
He was pretty damn good, just not for very long.
Of course, Bobby Witt did throw an Armando Galarraga near-perfecto when he was with the A's. An obvious blown call by an umpire in the 6th inning was the only baserunner on June 23, 1994 (see link below, scroll down a bit). The baseball gods, they do have a sense of humor.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/blog/big_league_stew/post/A-few-more-thoughts-on-Armando-Galarraga-and-Jim?urn=mlb,245466
And any nine-inning outing from Bobby Witt without a walk will forever be a WTF moment.
But I agree, in 2012, that is definitely a "swing."
Sure looks like one to me (viewing with 2012-version eyeballs.)
Of course, the Nitchell call didn't mean PG/no PG, as the count was 1-2. Who knows what would've happened on the 2-2 pitch had the call gone differently.
In 1956, the unofficial standard for a borderline swing, known by every Little Leaguer, was "did he break his wrist?" But the 1956 rule book gives no guidelines to umpires on how to determine whether a batter swung or not, and I don't think it does even today. AFAIC it's about the hardest routine borderline call to make.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main