Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, August 06, 2010

Umpire Bob Davidson’s Blown Call Costs Marlins Victory

Fair by a ####### Invincible White Owl!

Gaby Sanchez’s hard ninth-inning grounder past Phillies third baseman Greg Dobbs and down the left-field line should have given the Marlins a 5-4 victory, with Hanley Ramirez cruising toward the plate from second base. Instead, the veteran umpire Davidson called the ball foul—and stuck to his guns even after watching video (like this) that seemed to indicate to everyone else that he had seen it wrong.

“I have the highest respect for the umpires and I know they’re doing their best out there, but that was one of the worst calls I’ve ever seen in my 30 years of professional baseball,” Marlins manager Edwin Rodriguez told reporters. “That was bad. That ball was a fair ball by six inches. He never even was looking at that play.”

...“I was right on top of it and it was wide of the bag, that’s all. I had it foul,” Davidson said. “In my opinion, where it goes over the bag, you can’t tell. After a bounce, it came an inch or two on the fair side, but ... it was very close. But I’m right there. I know what I saw.”

As did pretty much everyone else who watched it live or in super-slow-motion.

“The ball never landed in foul territory. Dreadful,” Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria said.

Repoz Posted: August 06, 2010 at 12:20 PM | 92 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: miami, phillies

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. Dale Sams Posted: August 06, 2010 at 12:48 PM (#3609598)
Without an overhead camera of the base, I can't tell 100%....like Reynolds said, it takes a weird spin near the base.
   2. Dan Lee is some pumkins Posted: August 06, 2010 at 12:50 PM (#3609599)
“The ball never landed in foul territory. Dreadful,” Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria said.

My understanding of the rule is that it doesn't have to land in foul territory to be a foul ball. If a ball bounces in the infield in fair territory, passes the bag in foul territory, and spins back into fair territory before landing again, it's a foul ball.

My interpretation of Davidson's quote is that's what he saw happen. Personally, I can't tell from the video.
   3. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: August 06, 2010 at 12:52 PM (#3609600)
“The ball never landed in foul territory. Dreadful,” Marlins owner Jeffrey Loria said.

Doesn't matter, exactly. However, how a ball could hit fair in front of third and then hit fair down the left field line but go past third foul, I don't know, other than some Bugs Bunny juice on it. But the ball sure looked funky on the replay and looked like it was heading towards foul territory after the last bounce before third (whether it would have gone foul before third or after, I surely couldn't tell). I was surprised to see the ball land fair down the LF line, especially by the couple of inches that it did.
   4. Sandlapper Spike Posted: August 06, 2010 at 01:10 PM (#3609608)
Loria's wrong about the rule, of course, but the call was still horrid. From the replay it looks like Davidson gave up on the play and assumed the ball was going foul when it bounced prior to going over the bag.
   5. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 06, 2010 at 01:12 PM (#3609611)
I certainly can see, in the video (mlb.com), what Davidson says he saw. The ball very clearly takes a strange bounce at third base, bouncing toward foul territory and then slicing back toward the middle of the field.

My understanding of the rule is that the entire ball must be in foul territory for the entirety of its flight past the base in order to be a foul ball. (That is, on a ground ball that bounces before it gets to the base.) It's hard for me to believe that was the case with Sanchez's hit, but there's no camera angle I've seen that allows anyone to be certain.
A FAIR BALL is a batted ball that settles on fair ground between home and first base, or between home and third base, or that is on or over fair territory when bounding to the outfield past first or third base, or that touches first, second or third base, or that first falls on fair territory on or beyond first base or third base, or that, while on or over fair territory touches the person of an umpire or player, or that, while over fair territory, passes out of the playing field in flight.
   6. JRVJ (formerly Delta Socrates) Posted: August 06, 2010 at 01:13 PM (#3609613)
I make the appropriate provisos that I am a Phillies fan and that I was watching the game and thought it was a double.

Having said that, could any of you pretty boys tell me how in the name of Oliver Stone's magic bullet does a ball bounce in the infield in fair territory, pass the ball in foul territory and then spins back into fair territory?
   7. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: August 06, 2010 at 01:26 PM (#3609619)
I don't see what others are seeing with that bounce. On the replays it looks like it goes right over the bag without any sort of slice. JRVJ is right -- how could the ball bounce fair, then curve around the bag while in the air, and bounce back in fair territory? I'm going with Occam's razor on this one.
   8. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 06, 2010 at 01:28 PM (#3609620)
Delta:

Pitchers can make a ball curve. Who is to say that hitting a stone doesn't create a spin of its own?
   9. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: August 06, 2010 at 01:39 PM (#3609630)
If the ball went foul and then sliced back into fair territory it should have continued to roll away from the foul line after it crossed the bag. But the ball hit just inside the line and then rolled toward the foul line and the corner.
   10. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: August 06, 2010 at 01:39 PM (#3609632)
Pitchers can make a ball curve.


Harveys, all these years watching baseball and you still believe a curveball actually curves? (By the way, make sure you click on the animation in that article. It's a mind blower.)

EDIT: And, yes, I know that curveballs actually curve. Just not as much as our eyes tell us they do, apparently.
   11. Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama Posted: August 06, 2010 at 01:47 PM (#3609639)
If the ball went foul and then sliced back into fair territory it should have continued to roll away from the foul line after it crossed the bag. But the ball hit just inside the line and then rolled toward the foul line and the corner.

I'm sure Jolly Old St. Neck Wound can explain this phenomenon in detail, but pool balls reverse their english at certain times. It's just barely plausible that Davidson got it right. I don't think the Mythbuster's could do this one.
   12. Repoz Posted: August 06, 2010 at 01:55 PM (#3609648)
Who is to say that hitting a stone doesn't create a spin of its own?

The only stone that ball could hit to give it a spin like that is Oliver.
   13. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:03 PM (#3609652)
I'm sure Jolly Old St. Neck Wound can explain this phenomenon in detail, but pool balls reverse their english at certain times. It's just barely plausible that Davidson got it right. I don't think the Mythbuster's could do this one.

I agree -- it's certainly possible. Just very, very unlikely.
   14. Norcan Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:16 PM (#3609665)
It's Bob Davidson, of course it was fair.
   15. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:23 PM (#3609676)
Here's the thing. The ball landed six inches fair. It's not even close. Davidson blew the call. Everyone knows Davidson blew the call. But Davidson is a MLB ump so he's going to generate a theory by which the laws of physics cease to apply and a ball that landed fair by six inches suddenly didn't, because he is beyond error.

F*ck Bob Davidson. If the league gave a #### about baseball they'd award that game to the Marlins as it should have been on the field.
   16. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:25 PM (#3609680)
I agree -- it's certainly possible. Just very, very unlikely.


More likely. The laws of physics and motion still apply in Miami and Bob Davidson just got bored and decided not to bother watching the actual ball.
   17. JC in DC Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:28 PM (#3609688)
Man, that was awful close. I don't see the ball clearly fair UNTIL it passes the bag. It looks on the outer edge of the stripe before passing the bag. I don't think that was a horrible call.
   18. como10 Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:30 PM (#3609690)
Davidson would be acquitted in a criminal court. It isn't 100% clear to me whether the ball hit in foul or fair territory on that last bounce before crossing the bag. The camera was off at an angle, so there's a slight chance it hit something that made it take a slight angle back toward fair territory.

But in a civil court, where you only need a preponderance of the evidence, Davidson would be guilty as hell. It's not 1918, nor are they playing in a city park, so it is unlikely a major league infield would feature a stone so large that it would cause a ball to completely change direction in that way. Plus, Davidson is a bad umpire who always seems to be in the middle of an argument. He's wrong a lot.
   19. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:31 PM (#3609696)
Man, that was awful close. I don't see the ball clearly fair UNTIL it crosses the bag. It looks on the outer edge of the stripe before passing the bag. I don't think that was a horrible call.


Here's a useful test. If the ball lands six inches inside the line, less than three feet behind the bag, it's fair. This is all wonkery for the sake of wonkery. The ball was fair.
   20. John DiFool2 Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:32 PM (#3609700)
Why did he signal that it was foul before even looking for where it landed on the first bounce past the bag? His arms were already moving upwards and he wasn't even looking at the ball anymore-are umps trained not to watch the first past-the-bag bounce?
   21. JC in DC Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:36 PM (#3609705)
Why did he signal that it was foul before even looking for where it landed on the first bounce past the bag?


B/c if he's got it foul at the bag, what it does later is irrelevant, right? Now, if your point is that it's so bloody close he ought to look at the next hop to confirm his point, you might be right. I just wonder if, as you ask, umps are not trained to do that on the assumption that swiveling the head like that might contribute to more blown calls. That I don't know.
   22. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:37 PM (#3609708)
are umps trained not to watch the first past-the-bag bounce?


Isn't where the ball lands past the bag completely irrelevant to the call? In fact, it would make perfect sense for them not to look at where the ball lands since the cognitive dissonance of "It's fair!" (over the bag)/"It's foul!" (past the bag) would cause confusion and hesitation. They should be making their call as soon as the ball passes over the bag.

EDIT: A bottle of flavored vitamin water to JC.
   23. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:39 PM (#3609710)
B/c if he's got it foul at the bag, what it does later is irrelevant, right?


That's the position Davidson and Davidson's defenders are taking. Which is bloody well idiotic. The ball bounced in fair ground, hopped the bag, and then bounced in fair territory TWICE after it passed the bag (the second bounce in the outfield was on the line, so also fair.)

There's no way that's not a fair ball. None. There's no way that Bob Davidson saw it right. Davidson blew the call, and now Davidson is so much of a hubristic asshat that he can't even admit he blew the call. This is, in a nutshell, what's broken about MLB umpiring. The ball was fair. Two seconds of video replay show the ball is fair. The Phillies lost and should be 3 games back in the division. But Bob Davidson obviously has money riding on Philly this year.
   24. Dale Sams Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:41 PM (#3609711)
Here's a useful test. If the ball lands six inches inside the line


Where the ball lands is unimportant. It's where the ball is when it goes past the bag...again, without an overhead camera it's impossible to be 100% sure.

You know the world has turned upside down when BBTF needs Harold Reynolds and Kevin Millar to explain something to you.

Of course...Kevin and Harold arn't on the same page either.
   25. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:41 PM (#3609712)
the cognitive dissonance of "It's fair!" (over the bag)/"It's foul!" (past the bag) would cause confusion and hesitation.


We'd hate to confuse the umpires for no reason other than to get the call correct.
   26. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 02:47 PM (#3609718)
You might want to watch that video you posted sometime, because Harold and Millar agree with me. Davidson made his call based on where he thought the ball was going, stopped watching the ball, and obviously blew the call. He thought the ball was going foul. It didn't go foul. But reality must take a back seat to Bob Davidson, apparently.

It requires monumental hubris or abject stupidity to defend this call.
   27. JC in DC Posted: August 06, 2010 at 03:03 PM (#3609734)
Can the bluster for just a moment, Sam. Is your position that the ball did not hit the foul line before passing the bag? I've watched it, and it certainly seems the two bounces before the bag were on the line (possibly even the outer edge).
   28. frannyzoo Posted: August 06, 2010 at 03:04 PM (#3609735)
Looked fair to me, but let's shoot an easier fish. Why can't the stupid rule about fly balls hitting roofs/catwalks be changed? No way that should be a "live" ball. Of course, there's no reason to have indoor baseball, if you ask me, and I would be more than willing to push the Acme brand dynamite plunger at the implosion of any roofed baseball or football/futbol stadium.

It will be fun to ponder the Davidson call and Kubel's catwalk pop-up if these races come down to the final day.

P.S.: How much do those newish tennis line call machines cost?
   29. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 03:11 PM (#3609742)
Is your position that the ball did not hit the foul line before passing the bag?


The ball bounced on the line. That's a fair ball. The ball hopped into the air, passed the bag and landed 3-6 inches fair. The ball then bounced down the line, angling slightly toward the line, bounced fair a second time and then bounced across the line into the corner.

The laws of physics dictate that the ball crossed the bag fair. There's no way it made some sort of magic "S-curve" motion where it's headed foul (inside the bag) curves *around* the bag in foul territory, hits in fair territory and then curves back toward the foul line again. It's physically impossible.

Much as Reynolds and Millar argue in the video linked above, Davidson made his mind up when he say the trajectory of the ball off the bat. He "got deked" to use Reynolds' terms, by a funky bounce. That bounce straightened out the ball, which bounced *over the bag* (fair), landed inside the line (fair) and then rolled into the corner.

It's *obviously* a fair ball. There's no rational reason to believe otherwise if you pay attention to the actual replay.

Davidsion made up his mind and stopped watching the ball, and thus blew the call horribly.
   30. Mayor Blomberg Posted: August 06, 2010 at 03:18 PM (#3609748)
The ball bounced on the line. That's a fair ball. The ball hopped into the air, passed the bag and landed 3-6 inches fair. The ball then bounced down the line, angling slightly toward the line, bounced fair a second time and then bounced across the line into the corner.

The laws of physics dictate that the ball crossed the bag fair. There's no way it made some sort of magic "S-curve" motion where it's headed foul (inside the bag) curves *around* the bag in foul territory, hits in fair territory and then curves back toward the foul line again. It's physically impossible.


Except that you've got it making a curve, unless you're saying that it hit something that caused a straight deflection, which means that you're not taking the ball's own spin into account.

One of those tennis things might be nice, but you'd have to put it in the bag in order to see where the ball crosses the bag.
   31. T.J. Posted: August 06, 2010 at 03:28 PM (#3609756)
The only stone that ball could hit to give it a spin like that is Oliver.


According to your story, Gaby Sanchez's ball starts down the baseline in fair territory and continues up the line. Then you say it struck a rock in fair territory. The ball then proceeds to ricochet off the ground, striking Davidson in foul territory between the third and fourth rib. The ball then came off the rib, turned and hit Davidson in the right wrist, causing him to drop his baseball cap. The ball then bounced off the wrist, pauses — in mid-air, mind you — makes a left turn and lands in fair territory.

That is one magic scroogie.
   32. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 03:31 PM (#3609761)
Except that you've got it making a curve,


It straightened out, what Harold Reynolds calls a "bad hop" in the video. And that is exactly what happened. The spin of the ball, or something on the infield (the chalk of the line when it hops in front of the bag) changed the trajectory of the ball. A ball that was *headed foul* straightened out and went fair. That's possible. In fact, it happens all the time.

What did not happen is for the ball to make another curve after it hits fair behind the bag. If the ball had "curved around the bag" the momentum of the ball would have taken it into LF after it hit behind the bag. Instead, it rolls into the corner. There's no way that happens.

Davidson made his mind up when he saw the ball bounce in front of the bag. Then he stopped watching the actual play and mis-called the ball foul. Now, you guys can go to whatever lengths you want to defend an umpire who stops watching the game and makes calls based on how he *thinks* the game would/could/should go. Me, I think the umpires should actually watch the baseball through the entire play.

That ball was clearly fair. Davidson blew the call.
   33. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: August 06, 2010 at 03:40 PM (#3609771)
Umpire Bob Davidson’s Blown Call Costs Marlins Victory
Was I the only one disappointed with the video?

If the call was even wrong, he was off by about 2 inches, and off by inches on a call that's almost impossible to get right.

Gallaraga's perfect game. Now that was a blown call. Or just sticking to the fair/foul calls--Joe Mauer's double in game 2 of the ALDS (where a line drive landed right next to the left-field umpire about one foot in fair territory).

This one though? Where an umpire has to decide if a wickedly spun hard grounder crossed to the left or the right of some imaginary and hypothetical 3-dimensional "plane" between third base and the foul line? Just move on!
   34. Danny Posted: August 06, 2010 at 03:41 PM (#3609772)
I agree with Sam that the "S curve" theory is exceedingly unlikely.

The more interesting play from the game was Hanley's throw from LF to nail the runner at 3B.
   35. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 03:51 PM (#3609779)
This one though? Where an umpire has to decide if a wickedly spun hard grounder crossed to the left or the right of some imaginary and hypothetical 3-dimensional "plane" between third base and the foul line? Just move on!


That call could very well decide the *entire season* in the NL East. The Phillies lost that game. Gaby Sanchez doubled into the corner. Hanley Ramirez scored without a throw. The Phillis are three games back in the division.

Except Bob Davidson is too lazy or too inept to do his damned job. So the Phillies "win" the game in 10. Now they're only 2 games back still. If the Phillies tie the division or win by only a game, Bob Davidson deserves a picture on the "NL East Champions" team photo.

The fact that other umpires blew other calls doesn't make this any less horrible. The fact that Davdison can't even admit that he blew the call, even though no rational observer could believe he got that right, explains the problem with MLB umpires in a nutshell. Full of their own perfection and self-worth, to the detriment of the actual game.
   36. hokieneer Posted: August 06, 2010 at 03:58 PM (#3609786)
From the replay, you can't tell if the ball went over the bag or not. It was very close. You can tell the ball is spinning back towards the field of play after it crosses where the bag is. There was definitely some funky english on that ball.
   37. spycake Posted: August 06, 2010 at 04:13 PM (#3609794)
It looks pretty clear to me. What could Davidson see?

1) The first bounce was in foul territory near the plate, or maybe just touching the line. Based on that, you would have to guess the ball would eventually go foul.

2) However, the second bounce was clearly on the line in front of the bag. OK, now you have to re-assess, and the only logical conclusion is that the ball's path is angling toward fair territory, which is perfectly logical if you consider that bats can and do make contact with the ball over the back of the plate, on the foul side of the line, driving it toward fair territory.

3) The third bounce is WAY in fair territory. Not even close.

So whether Davidson makes up his mind after the second bounce as the ball passes the bag, like he is technically supposed to, or whether he "cheats" and waits a fraction of a second for the confirmation of bounce #3, he should get this call right as a fair ball.

It seems the only way he could have called it foul is either by prematurely deciding after the first bounce, or ignoring the first bounce entirely and guessing about the path of the ball. Either way, he's ignoring valuable information and thus not doing his job properly.
   38. Van Lingle Mungo Jerry Posted: August 06, 2010 at 04:25 PM (#3609801)
That call could very well decide the *entire season* in the NL East. ... If the Phillies tie the division or win by only a game, Bob Davidson deserves a picture on the "NL East Champions" team photo.


And the Braves haven't been the beneficiary of a funky call all season? And the Phillies haven't been victimized by a bad call in another game?
   39. BDC Posted: August 06, 2010 at 04:27 PM (#3609802)
F*ck Bob Davidson

Sam, that's an unusually mild fate for you to wish on an umpire.
   40. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 06, 2010 at 04:37 PM (#3609811)
I don't see what others are seeing with that bounce. On the replays it looks like it goes right over the bag without any sort of slice. JRVJ is right -- how could the ball bounce fair, then curve around the bag while in the air, and bounce back in fair territory? I'm going with Occam's razor on this one.


me too, I just watched the replay 5 times, not even close, if you notice Davidson was starting to call it just after the ball made it's last bounce before the bag, he wasn't looking at the ball after that, I think he just assumed it was going foul, but it didn't.

The ball didn't curve in the air, but it's trajectory changed SLIGHTLY with the last bounce, I think if the trajectory didn't change it may have landed fair, but it still would have gone over the bag, as it was the call is completely indefensible
   41. Cabbage Posted: August 06, 2010 at 04:38 PM (#3609812)
The only was for Davidson to make the correct call was if he had taken a step back and to the left.
   42. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 06, 2010 at 04:55 PM (#3609832)
Why are you arguing about this? An umpire missed a tough call, and refuses to acknowledge it. Move on.
   43. ColonelTom Posted: August 06, 2010 at 04:57 PM (#3609835)
If Hanley Ramirez doesn't botch a routine throw to first, or if Gonzalez doesn't burn out Nunez in a mopup role the night before, the Marlins don't need a bottom of the ninth and that play never even happens. The Marlins ought to look in the mirror before they cry about a blown call.

Besides, doesn't Loria have anything better to do, like plot which city he'll extort next on Bud Selig's behalf?
   44. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:00 PM (#3609841)
And the Braves haven't been the beneficiary of a funky call all season? And the Phillies haven't been victimized by a bad call in another game?


Not of this magnitude, no. The umpire gave the game to Philly by making an egregiously idiotic call.
   45. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:02 PM (#3609842)
If Hanley Ramirez doesn't botch a routine throw to first, or if Gonzalez doesn't burn out Nunez in a mopup role the night before, the Marlins don't need a bottom of the ninth and that play never even happens. The Marlins ought to look in the mirror before they cry about a blown call.


On get off it. Yeah, the Marlins played poorly in the top half. That doesn't mean Davidson's gaffe wasn't obviously wrong, obviously terrible, and obviously beneficial to the Phillies (who lost the game by all rights.)
   46. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:03 PM (#3609844)
It will be fun to ponder the Davidson call and Kubel's catwalk pop-up if these races come down to the final day.
I'm really hoping the Cardinals lose the Central by a game, so we can go back to their 20 inning, 2-1 loss to the Mets back in April, where LaRussa stopped trying to win and just had infielders Felipe Lopez and Joe Mather pitch the final 3 innings.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SLN/SLN201004170.shtml

Sure, it was April, and he wanted to save his starters...but that's no reason to give up a chance at victory.
   47. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:07 PM (#3609851)
Sam:

I would normally agree with your general sentiment if you were not such a chronic complainer.

Do you curse the sun when it comes up in the morning? And then curse the rain should it fall?
   48. ColonelTom Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:12 PM (#3609855)
Google "braves blown call" and this is the first hit:

Braves 4, Detroit 3: Another blown call halts Tigers rally

So let's not pretend the Phils are the only team to benefit from a bad call. #### happens in a pennant race. The Braves still have a 3-game lead. If they lose it, they have no one to blame but themselves.
   49. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:15 PM (#3609857)
Do you curse the sun when it comes up in the morning? And then curse the rain should it fall?


We're working on our 20th odd day of 100+ degree heat index where it's "dangerous conditions" to go outside anytime from mid-day until nightfall. Of *course* I curse the sun.

The rain is lovely.
   50. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:17 PM (#3609860)
So let's not pretend the Phils are the only team to benefit from a bad call.


But let's do pretend that balls and strikes are anything similar to calls on balls in play down the lines.

The Braves still have a 3-game lead.


They should have a 3 game lead. Thanks to the idiot Davidson, it's still only 2.
   51. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:20 PM (#3609863)
Sam Hutcheson:
The fact that Davdison can't even admit that he blew the call, even though no rational observer could believe he got that right. (...) The umpire gave the game to Philly by making an egregiously idiotic call.


I don't have any stake in this game. I think he made the right call.

Also:

Without an overhead camera of the base, I can't tell 100%....like Reynolds said, it takes a weird spin near the base.


Personally, I can't tell from the video.


I certainly can see, in the video (mlb.com), what Davidson says he saw. The ball very clearly takes a strange bounce at third base, bouncing toward foul territory and then slicing back toward the middle of the field.


Man, that was awful close. I don't see the ball clearly fair UNTIL it passes the bag. It looks on the outer edge of the stripe before passing the bag. I don't think that was a horrible call.


From the replay, you can't tell if the ball went over the bag or not. It was very close.


That's just from this thread! Serious baseball fans can't write things like that about actual "egregiously idiotic" calls that "no rational observers could believe (they) got right." No one was posting that Jim Joyce was right after Gallaraga's game, and no one said Phil Cuzzi made the right call on Mauer's double in the '09 ALDS. Everyone who saw it knew they were completely, 100% wrong, and there was no justification for it.

It was a really close call that could have gone either way. Calls like this happen a hundred times a year.
   52. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:27 PM (#3609875)
It seems the only way he could have called it foul is either by prematurely deciding after the first bounce, or ignoring the first bounce entirely and guessing about the path of the ball.

The last bounce before the bag was on the line, most balls hook, so he assumed it was going foul. Clearly the ball was not foul. I assume the S-curve advocates on here are just being difficult.

It was a tough call though, especially if you don't look at the first bounce after the bag which he clearly didn't/isn't supposed to, so I'm not too worked up about it as a Braves fan. It's likely there will be several more egregiously wrong calls in tonight's set of games, just with lower stakes.
   53. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:29 PM (#3609876)
I don't have any stake in this game. I think he made the right call.

Also:


I've seen the video, and I'm not a Braves Fan (or a Marlins Fan), some of those comments are just people trying to be nice, others I don't know, Davidson made a bad call if you actually believe he made the right call you either

1: Need new glasses
2: need a new TV/computer
3: don't know what the rule is
4: Haven't a clue about physics

Having seen your posts on the great BBTF movie blog... I think you are the reincarnation of Artie Ziff
   54. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:32 PM (#3609878)
I don't have any stake in this game. I think he made the right call.


You are apparently laughably gullible. There is no way on the planet that that ball did a damned hula dance around the bag. It was going foul, spin or chalk kicked it back fair, across the bag, into LF. The laws of physics are pretty damned clear on this, your outsized "but we just can't KNOW from the replay angle" nannygagging notwithstanding. You people are essentially stating that the ball had a mind of its own and decided to get Anaximander's "swerve" on just for shits and giggles.

No.
   55. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:34 PM (#3609880)
It was a tough call though, especially if you don't look at the first bounce after the bag which he clearly didn't/isn't supposed to


He clearly didn't watch the ball at any point AFTER the last bounce before the bag, that's the problem.

The issue with not watching the first bounce after the bag is that a ball may be fair when it passes the bag but the first bounce after lands foul- balls generally slice towards the foul area

The issue here is that the ball did take kind of a funny bounce- a bounce that guaranteed that it was going to be fair, the ball didn't make an S curve or any nonsense like that. Plus I don;'t know why people are mentioning that he wasn't in position, he was in fine position to see- he juts didn't look.
   56. TDF, situational idiot Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:35 PM (#3609885)
If anyone cares...

1. What a terrible call. Like Andy I play pool, and there's absolutely no way there was any kind of spin that would make the ball bounce fair, curve around the bag, then bounce fair again. The ump clearly called what he thought would happen not what did happen, and he blew it; he should 'fess up and move on.

2. So what? As others have said, it's one bad call during a season of dozens (hundreds?) of bad calls. Because it happened at the end of a game doesn't mean it "caused" the Marlins to lose any more than if it'd happened to the first batter of the game. It's something we're going to have to live with unless you want to argue we should get rid of human umpires.

3. I'm going to go out on a limb and say every one of us makes more mistakes in the course of our jobs than even the worst professional ump/ref. While I have to confess I get caught up in the moment at times, I try to remember that.
   57. ColonelTom Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:54 PM (#3609906)
I'd wager Davidson's call (while wrong) was closer than the strike call on Damon. But fine, let's stick to game-ending plays in the field. Remember this one?

Another costly blown call: Umpire robs Giants of winning run

I assume, Sam, you will be calling for a one-game playoff if the Braves win the wild card over the Giants by one game. Right?
   58. Dale Sams Posted: August 06, 2010 at 05:59 PM (#3609914)
You are apparently laughably gullible. There is no way on the planet that that ball did a damned hula dance around the bag. It was going foul, spin or chalk kicked it back fair, across the bag, into LF. The laws of physics are pretty damned clear on this, your outsized "but we just can't KNOW from the replay angle" nannygagging notwithstanding. You people are essentially stating that the ball had a mind of its own and decided to get Anaximander's "swerve" on just for shits and giggles.

No


I think this is the room you were looking for.
   59. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 06, 2010 at 06:25 PM (#3609928)
I assume, Sam, you will be calling for a one-game playoff if the Braves win the wild card over the Giants by one game. Right?


That call was horrific as well. What's your point? I'd prefer that the umpires not make crap-assed calls to begin with. I'd prefer they not suck.
   60. I Left Tim Raines Down In Africa Posted: August 06, 2010 at 06:37 PM (#3609938)
The #### that drives me nuts is the phrasing of "costing them the game". Sure, there are tons of plays throughout the rest of the game, but not getting the runner in from third with less than 2 out or whatever other circumstance doesn't matter, the only thing that happened was that one blown call.

Tim McClelland didn't make the Padres lose to the Rockies. Don Denkinger didn't make the Cardinals lose the series to the Royals. Sure, they are the most *magnified* of the plays that took place, but to say that one play won or lost a game is foolhardy, at best.
   61. spycake Posted: August 06, 2010 at 06:40 PM (#3609940)
He clearly didn't watch the ball at any point AFTER the last bounce before the bag, that's the problem.


As I posted above, I think the problem is that Davidson really didn't watch the ball closely BEFORE the last bounce before the bag. If you see bounce #1 foul by the plate, and bounce #2 on the line just before the bag, it should be pretty obvious where the ball is immediately headed, and it ain't towards foul territory. You shouldn't even need to see bounce #3 after the bag.

Now, if all one could see was the location of bounce #2 on the line before the bag, then it might be a toss-up as to whether it would pass over the bag or not. But that shouldn't be the case here.
   62. dze27 Posted: August 06, 2010 at 07:05 PM (#3609960)
Did Davidson simply think that the first bounce of the ball near the plate was foul, making the rest of the path of the ball a moot point? That's what I thought at first (although watching the replay it clearly hits the line).
   63. Fly should without a doubt be number !!!!! Posted: August 06, 2010 at 07:45 PM (#3609981)
The #### that drives me nuts is the phrasing of "costing them the game". Sure, there are tons of plays throughout the rest of the game, but not getting the runner in from third with less than 2 out or whatever other circumstance doesn't matter, the only thing that happened was that one blown call.

This is incorrect, and ridiculous. If the team doesn't execute, then they didn't execute. Fine. That happens.

If the umps don't get the calls right, then in the literal sense they are NOT PLAYING BASEBALL anymore, but rather some made-up sport. A blown umpire call is far, far more important to a team being cost a game than a team not scoring a runner.

Imagine a team would be a perfect baseball team. Winning every single game of the season. BUT they get a hit only after swinging at the first 2 pitches in the strike zone, and missing them. With perfect umpires, that team would win every single game. However, if the umpires call every pitch that isn't swung at completely randomly, this perfect team could lose games. They're still the best baseball team ever, even if another team, with these random umps, wins every game. Because with bad umps, you're not playing the same sport.
   64. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 06, 2010 at 07:54 PM (#3609989)
If the umps don't get the calls right, then in the literal sense they are NOT PLAYING BASEBALL anymore

This kind of bullshit that people post on this site is marvelous.
   65. Fly should without a doubt be number !!!!! Posted: August 06, 2010 at 07:56 PM (#3609991)
What part of it isn't true? How can you say a team that would have won the game, had a fair ball been called fair is worse than the team that would have lost, just because the team on the losing end of the bad call didn't score even MORE runs? Where does it stop? What if there are 2 missed home runs, but the Marlins also hit into a bunch of double plays? Should they have played EVEN BETTER?

Where do you draw the line?

They literally had the winning run wiped off the board. The two teams were completely equal, except for one play where the rules of baseball apparently didn't apply. Despite that handicap, people will always argue that the victimized team didn't deserve to win because they didn't get in a runner from third with no outs. Well, guess what? Neither did the Phillies, in this case.
   66. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: August 06, 2010 at 08:31 PM (#3610026)
They literally had the winning run wiped off the board. The two teams were completely equal, except for one play where the rules of baseball apparently didn't apply.


The Twins beat the Rays yesterday when Jason Kubel's lazy pop-up hit the top of the dome, deflected wildly and landed out of reach of the infielders, scoring the game-winning run from third.

The Indians beat the Yankees in that 2007 ALDS Game when a swarm of gnats surrounded Joba Chamberlain on the mound and distracted him enough that he lost the ability to throw strikes.

A Cubs fan refused to yield and let Moises Alou catch a foul popup that was drifting towards the stands, and the Marlins used the second life to start a dramatic rally that sent them to the World Series.

And one of these days a routine game-ending grounder to the shortstop will instead ricochet off an umpire, and the game-winning run will cross the plate.

It's baseball. Sh!t happens. Over 162 games you hope the bad hops and close calls just balance out.
   67. Mayor Blomberg Posted: August 06, 2010 at 09:03 PM (#3610061)
The rules of baseball DID apply on that one play. A missed call is not a refusal to follow the rules of baseball any more than a throwing error or a passed ball is. Part of playing baseball is being subject to the rulings of human arbiters who sometimes blow calls just as pitchers groove fastballs and shortstops boot routine grounders.
   68. spycake Posted: August 06, 2010 at 09:14 PM (#3610068)
Did Davidson simply think that the first bounce of the ball near the plate was foul, making the rest of the path of the ball a moot point? That's what I thought at first (although watching the replay it clearly hits the line).


It doesn't matter where the ball hit previously -- it only matters where it stops, where a fielder touches it, or where it is when it passes the first or third base bag.

I wouldn't be surprised if Davidson was influenced by that first foul bounce, though, and expected the ball to continue foul without realizing its true path (as indicated by bounce #2).
   69. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 06, 2010 at 09:19 PM (#3610075)
I think bad umpiring is only tolerable so long as there is no alternative

The minute some computer hooked up to a DVR has the artificial intelligence ability to make every call swiftly and accurately - then flesh and blood umpires should get the boot imho

we're not there yet of course.
we may never get there actually, but if we do....

A bad call by an ump is not like a bad bounce, or a swarm of gnats a bad call by an ump is revisionist history in a sense- the ball WAS fair, but the ump said it as foul, the ball missed the plate but the ump said it caught the corner

that's why bad umpiring is unlike everything #66 said.
   70. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: August 06, 2010 at 09:29 PM (#3610081)
They literally had the winning run wiped off the board.

Where is the replay of Davidson climbing up the scoreboard with a wet wipe in hand, and wiping the run off the board?
   71. Brian Posted: August 06, 2010 at 10:58 PM (#3610130)
A Cubs fan refused to yield and let Moises Alou catch a foul popup that was drifting towards the stands, and the Marlins used the second life to start a dramatic rally that sent them to the World Series.


Enough of this crap already. Alou couldn't catch that ball if the stadium was empty. He recently admitted as much after letting that poor schmuck twist for 6 years. Anyone who saw Alou play LF the last 5-6 years of his career realizes that ball wasn't going to be caught by Alou.
Now the Japanese Spiderman guy who climbed that fence easily yesterday? Definite catch and killing Bartman is ok.
   72. A triple short of the cycle Posted: August 06, 2010 at 11:08 PM (#3610137)
It requires monumental hubris or abject stupidity to defend this call.

Dude, you're an #######.

I defended the first base umpire who made the safe call at the end of the Gallaraga near no-hitter - I thought it looked like the first baseman bobbled the ball temporarily, allowing the running to be safe. IMO it was a bang-bang play that could have been called either way.

Same thing here - I can see why the umpire called the ball foul, because it looked like it may NOT have passed over the bag, which is the only thing that matters. It wasn't a clear cut call, by any means. A significant number of people on this very thread have said as much.
   73. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 06, 2010 at 11:33 PM (#3610157)
edit post deleted
what's the point some people are obviously trolling
   74. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 06, 2010 at 11:36 PM (#3610165)
[edit post deleted
what's the point some people are obviously trolling
   75. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: August 06, 2010 at 11:58 PM (#3610201)
I love the difference in reaction between the two broadcast teams. The Marlin broadcast team is beyond outraged, while the Phily duo is like, "Geez, that's a close call, isn't it? So what's the count?"

Also, this ball was fair.

Nobody has said that this ball was definitely foul.

Many of us are saying the ball is obviously fair.

Some of you are saying that it is possible that the ball could've been foul going past the bag (and, thus, is a foul ball).

If, upon looking at the replay in slow motion several times, a group of devout baseball fans breaks down like this:

70% say definitely fair
30% say could see how it might've been foul, but it's tough
0% say definitely foul

then how can you not say that:
1) the ball was probably fair
2) if it was not fair, it took an very unusually-hit ball to be foul, and
3) the right call would've been to call it fair.

To say otherwise would be to argue that:
1) every close pitch should always be a ball, even if the odds are strong that it was a strike, because you just can't say for sure.
2) every close fair-foul call should go "foul", because even if the odds are that the ball was fair, you just can't really be sure on those close ones, so let's say it was foul.

He's lucky Lou Pinella wasn't the manager of the Marlins, is all I've got to say!
   76. Fly should without a doubt be number !!!!! Posted: August 07, 2010 at 12:12 AM (#3610211)
The rules of baseball DID apply on that one play. A missed call is not a refusal to follow the rules of baseball any more than a throwing error or a passed ball is. Part of playing baseball is being subject to the rulings of human arbiters who sometimes blow calls just as pitchers groove fastballs and shortstops boot routine grounders.

A blown call is just as much the rules of baseball as a throwing error is? That's...that's nonsensical. A blown call is, by definition, in disagreement with the rules of baseball. A throwing error is explained clearly in the rules of baseball.
   77. Joe Bivens, Minor Genius Posted: August 07, 2010 at 12:21 AM (#3610219)
69...we don't need computers, just instant replay. We can institute it with compassion for the fallible humans we vilify for their human weakness. We can say "hey, uh, I think you missed that one, can we look at the replay?" and the umps, secure in their positions, can say "sure", knowing that we understand that tough calls may be missed by them. No one gets their feelings hurt, they ultimately get the call right, and we're all happy.

They just have to enforce all rules designed to keep the game moving along so that there aren't complaints about game times running too long.
   78. Fly should without a doubt be number !!!!! Posted: August 07, 2010 at 12:25 AM (#3610222)

The Twins beat the Rays yesterday when Jason Kubel's lazy pop-up hit the top of the dome, deflected wildly and landed out of reach of the infielders, scoring the game-winning run from third.

The Indians beat the Yankees in that 2007 ALDS Game when a swarm of gnats surrounded Joba Chamberlain on the mound and distracted him enough that he lost the ability to throw strikes.

A Cubs fan refused to yield and let Moises Alou catch a foul popup that was drifting towards the stands, and the Marlins used the second life to start a dramatic rally that sent them to the World Series.

And one of these days a routine game-ending grounder to the shortstop will instead ricochet off an umpire, and the game-winning run will cross the plate.


Every one of those things is clearly explained in the rules of baseball. There is a chance that the Bartman play was a blown call. I'm not going to get into whether or not it was, but none of the other examples were in disagreement with the rules of baseball.
   79. Jeltzandini Posted: August 07, 2010 at 12:50 AM (#3610244)
It was fair, but that ball did weird, weird things, changing direction several times. First bounce near the plate was foul, heading fair. But it was hooking foul when it hit on or near the chalk for the second bounce. Ump sees that, and the memory kicks in of 1000 previous balls he's seen do approximately that, 998 of which went foul before the bag. He calls it foul. But it bounces off something and stays fair, in fact heading further fair. Bounce past the bag is a few inches fair. But it's still got the spin on it so it switches directions again and rolls into foul ground in left field, its epic journey of twists and turns complete.

Fair/foul on a ball over the bag has got to be one of the harder calls to make. Like a football ref who has to figure out where a punt fifteen feet in the air, twenty yards in front of him, went out of bounds; it's just hard to get the geometry right.

Agree with above points that the preferred mechanic would probably not involve turning the head to see where the ball lands after it passes the base.
   80. CFiJ Posted: August 07, 2010 at 01:54 AM (#3610306)
I still think Alou had a chance at that ball, and his saying otherwise years later was simply a kindhearted gesture to try and get the monkey off Bartman's back.

What the hell am I talking about? I don't even remember a 2003 Cubs season!
   81. Walt Davis Posted: August 07, 2010 at 03:20 AM (#3610380)
70% say definitely fair
30% say could see how it might've been foul, but it's tough
0% say definitely foul

then how can you not say that:
1) the ball was probably fair
2) if it was not fair, it took an very unusually-hit ball to be foul, and
3) the right call would've been to call it fair.

To say otherwise would be to argue that:
1) every close pitch should always be a ball, even if the odds are strong that it was a strike, because you just can't say for sure.
2) every close fair-foul call should go "foul", because even if the odds are that the ball was fair, you just can't really be sure on those close ones, so let's say it was foul.


ummmm ... wrong.

The ball was probably fair therefore the right call was fair?

How about this "to say otherwise would be to argue that:

3) we don't know if the ball was fair or foul so we should demur to the decision of the paid professional who is trained to make this call and saw it more closely than we did."

or, as most replay rules require,

4) in the absence of clear, irrefutable video evidence that the ball was in fair territory as it crossed the bag, the ruling on the field stands.

Or we could stab him in the neck.

It is, no offense :-), asinine to argue that since we're pretty damn sure it was a fair ball, the call was obviously wrong.

Now if you want to argue there's a less than 1% chance he was right on that call, then be my guest. If you want, like others, to argue that it's impossible for the ball to have been foul across the bag, as many have here, then be my guest. But the position of "if you think it was unlikely, you must conclude Davidson blew the call" is wrong.
   82. Howie Menckel Posted: August 07, 2010 at 04:20 AM (#3610399)
Not sure this has been brought up - the CAMERA ANGLE seemed to me, and others, to suggest that the ball just might have been foul as it crossed the bag, which is all that matters (not sure which is stranger, the amount of people who didn't know the rule, or the amount of people who continue to ignore it. If the ump gets it right as it crosses the bag, no need to look where it lands).

I have no problem with the idea that the camera angle is just parallaxed-enough off to create confusion. But unless we're watching two different camera feeds (possible, I could care less about this game and saw MLB Network replays), seems like the only way this was "obviously wrong" is if you think the ball has to 'land fair.'

I'd guess the camera angle is the issue, but if not then I would not say this was a terrible call.

The notion that this is the only game-changing call to affect either the Braves or Phillies all year is pretty funny, though, even if this one barely outranks many others....
   83. The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott) Posted: August 08, 2010 at 07:07 AM (#3611071)
Whenever I read quotes from Loria, I read them in the voice of Prince Vasily from War and Peace (at least as read by that guy who did the audiobook version)
   84. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2010 at 11:40 AM (#3611084)
I still think Alou had a chance at that ball, and his saying otherwise years later was simply a kindhearted gesture to try and get the monkey off Bartman's back.

Alou claims he never said it. He claims he has always steadfastly believed that he could have gotten that ball.
   85. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: August 08, 2010 at 01:00 PM (#3611097)
every close fair-foul call should go "foul", because even if the odds are that the ball was fair, you just can't really be sure on those close ones, so let's say it was foul.

Actually, any close fair-foul call should be called fair. If you call it foul, the play is over except for the arguing, and no amount of arguing can tell you what would have happened subsequently (except in cases where the ball bounces into the stands or is touched by a fan). OTOH, if you call it fair and let the action play out, you can then get help from the other umps and reverse the call if someone had a better view (or for that matter, reverse the call if you really thought it was foul but just wanted to make sure that no one else had a better view; just pretend that you "got help"). It would be difficult to retrain umps to do this on close calls, but it will also be necessary if you ever want to implement a replay or other automated backup system for these kinds of calls.
   86. Mayor Blomberg Posted: August 08, 2010 at 01:53 PM (#3611113)
Many of us are saying the ball is obviously fair.


That's a use of obvious like (to recur to a month old-thread) the use of unique mean "a member of a small class." Obvious is the blown fair/foul call in the playoffs last year, or Denkinger's 1985 call.

Given the way these plays happen in real time, I'd not say this call is anything near terrible if wrong.
   87. Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos Posted: August 08, 2010 at 03:22 PM (#3611135)
If, upon looking at the replay in slow motion several times, a group of devout baseball fans breaks down like this:

70% say definitely fair
30% say could see how it might've been foul, but it's tough
0% say definitely foul


Then I'm not sure what the remedy is. If MLB were to use the NFL's instant replay rules (the referee must see "incontrovertible visual evidence" for a call to be overturned)--and the above percentages are correct--it would still be a foul ball.
   88. tfbg9 Posted: August 08, 2010 at 05:26 PM (#3611183)
You are apparently laughably gullible. There is no way on the planet that that ball did a damned hula dance around the bag. It was going foul, spin or chalk kicked it back fair, across the bag, into LF. The laws of physics are pretty damned clear on this, your outsized "but we just can't KNOW from the replay angle" nannygagging notwithstanding. You people are essentially stating that the ball had a mind of its own and decided to get Anaximander's "swerve" on just for shits and giggles.


I. J. Reilly?
   89. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: August 08, 2010 at 05:54 PM (#3611218)
Then I'm not sure what the remedy is. If MLB were to use the NFL's instant replay rules (the referee must see "incontrovertible visual evidence" for a call to be overturned)--and the above percentages are correct--it would still be a foul ball.


No, the call would be reversed 70 percent of the time, since those "definitely fair" would conclude that there was indeed incontrovertible evidence. At home, the 30 percent would wonder what the hell he was seeing. This is just another bit of evidence how replay doesn't really "get it right" the way its supporters have deluded themselves into thinking it does.
   90. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: August 08, 2010 at 06:20 PM (#3611257)
A blown call is just as much the rules of baseball as a throwing error is? That's...that's nonsensical. A blown call is, by definition, in disagreement with the rules of baseball. A throwing error is explained clearly in the rules of baseball.
No, a blown call is a disagreement with the facts of what happened, not the rules of baseball. (*) The umpire didn't say, "The rules say this is fair, but I'm calling it foul because I think the rules should be different." He said, "This went foul according to the rules, so I'm calling it foul."



(*) Of course, a call could be blown because the umpire doesn't know the rules, but that's appealable, and it's not what we're discussing anyway.
   91. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: August 08, 2010 at 06:31 PM (#3611272)
The ball is obvoiusly fair to anyone not looking for a play to support their theory that baseballs are not governed by the general rules of Newtonian physics.
   92. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 08, 2010 at 06:55 PM (#3611296)

That is one magic scroogie.


So you're saying there must have been a second splitter?

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Backlasher
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogFan Returns Home Run Ball to Ishikawa; Receives World Series tickets
(49 - 4:32pm, Oct 21)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 1 OMNICHATTER
(42 - 4:30pm, Oct 21)
Last: Davo's Favorite Tacos Are Moose Tacos

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(840 - 4:28pm, Oct 21)
Last: Juilin Sandar to Conkling Speedwell (Arjun)

NewsblogRoyals’ James Shields passed kidney stone during ALCS but is ready for World Series | The Kansas City Star
(29 - 4:27pm, Oct 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogCardinals proud of fourth straight NLCS appearance | cardinals.com
(56 - 4:26pm, Oct 21)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(2883 - 4:25pm, Oct 21)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

NewsblogBaseball's hardest throwing bullpen - Beyond the Box Score
(6 - 4:22pm, Oct 21)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogSielski: A friend fights for ex-Phillie Dick Allen's Hall of Fame induction
(98 - 4:09pm, Oct 21)
Last: AROM

NewsblogBrisbee: The 5 worst commercials of the MLB postseason
(172 - 4:08pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogBaseball Prospectus | Pebble Hunting: An Illustrated Guide to the People of Kauffman Stadium
(8 - 4:07pm, Oct 21)
Last: PreservedFish

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(291 - 3:54pm, Oct 21)
Last: Squash

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(446 - 3:37pm, Oct 21)
Last: AuntBea

NewsblogSo You’re About to Pitch to Pablo Sandoval | FanGraphs Baseball
(4 - 2:45pm, Oct 21)
Last: deputydrew

NewsblogMorosi: Could Cain’s story make baseball king of sports world again?
(106 - 2:35pm, Oct 21)
Last: Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame)

NewsblogCalcaterra: So, if you’re not a fan of the Royals or Giants, who ya got?
(100 - 1:35pm, Oct 21)
Last: Belfry Bob

Page rendered in 0.8881 seconds
52 querie(s) executed