User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
For wholesale prices on baseball gifts and equipment, check these stores out! |
Page rendered in 0.5892 seconds
51 querie(s) executed
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.
I hate this submisstion system. So clugy, so unforgiving, no way to go back and fix mistakes.
Agreed, because you can definitely argue it and that's a really small pool of noteworthy plays.
Same here. I really thought it was going to be spectacular.
Ok, the announcers go over the top. Still a great catch.
It was a nice catch and a great way to end a ballgame. But do you think it was worthy of creating "I’ve never seen anything like that in my life,” kind of comments?
You guys are such curmudgeons.
Well, Hutcheson is just a bitter Atlanta fan. Whatever the true quality of that catch was, what was spectacular yesterday was the way Cole Hamels utterly humiliated the Braves.
Maybe they meant as a game-ending, game-saving catch.
I don't know that anybody above is really disagreeing with that. Within the context of the game, watching it as it happens, of course a Nats fan is going to be justifiably excited to see the game end on a play like that. And I agree with #13, his disappearing from view briefly kind of adds to the coolness factor. But just the technical merit of the catch: that's not really in the conversation for best play of the year; it's nowhere near as impressive as Trout robbing a home run from a few weeks ago, for example.
The wannabes and hangers on always adjudge themselves by reference to their betters.
Oh I agree, to his credit though, he did cover a hell of a lot of ground.
I doubt it's the best game-ending, game-saving catch FP has seen.
Reading the comments in the excerpt (but not Sam's) before seeing the video, I assumed I was going to see something like the Wise play or the Trout play or the Buehrle play.
Or something like this. Now that was a "holy crap" moment.
Very very nice catch in a big situation, a lot of guys wouldn't have made it. But I don't think it deserves the word "spectacular."
What, you mean noted paragons of objectivity Bob Carpenter and FP Santangelo overreacted to a Nats play? Unthinkable.
Related to nothing, Carpenter says "are you kidding me?" way too often. Like twice a game.
No. As long as he doesn't come down before he catches the ball, the out is recorded. A player wouldn't be allowed to leap the fence, establish his feet, and record the out.
Torii Hunter also did not know.
The situation, the fact that he lept out of view and the fact that he probably crashed into the wall really make this one an exciting play though.
They address that a guy can fall into the stands after making a catch (in which case runners can advance), and they define a catch in 2.00, but I don't see where it's clear that you can't vault a low fence (as say in Fenway's RF) and make a legal catch.
Interesting. Good to know. Seems a bit arbitrary, but the line has to be drawn somewhere arbitrary at the end of the day.
Googling "Amazing catch Washington Nationals" gives me this leaping Roger Bernadina catch from last year.
EDIT: Wrong year.
We've had a thread on that catch before (see posts 11-16), in which I asked this exact question. It doesn't seem clear from the rules one way or the other.
Yes, I edited my post to reflect that.
Well, are they? Don't leave us in suspense.
OK, what I said above was only half right (I think). He can't establish contact with the other side, but it isn't as simple as just being in air. He must also have part of his foot somewhere inside the field of play, as noted in the rulebook here (assuming the same rule applies to fair balls as foul balls. It's the closest thing to an on-point ruling I've found):
A fielder, in order to make a catch on a foul ball nearing a dugout or other out-of-play area (such as the stands), must have one or both feet on or over the playing surface (including the lip of the dugout) and neither foot on the ground inside the dugout or in any other out-of-play area.
In this case, it's impossible to tell for certain whether any of his body was still in the field of play when he made the catch. If you look at the still image in one of the other linked You Tube videos, you can see that it was going to be really close (though my guess is since the ball was likely moving faster than the foot, he was just barely in play when the catch was recorded).
Yeah, it's really really close, and my assumption going in (base instinct; i.e. wild guess) would be that if his entire body were already over the fence when he made the catch, it shouldn't be an out. But on that play (especially in the minors) the umps going to give the out for the effort, I suspect.
I'd love to see something like this come up in the Majors, say in a playoff game in Fenway or something.
It was a college conference tournament game, so he essentially saved his team's season (though the homer would have only tied the score). And his coach was retiring after the season, so the catch assured him at least one more game.
Runner on 3rd, less than 2 outs, tie game, bottom of the ninth. Sac fly wins the game.
Deep flyball to the outfield, the game will apparently end whether or not the fielder makes the catch. So the fielder does this: instead of catching the ball, he immediately juggles it, bouncing it between his glove and his bare hand. And continuing to juggle the ball, he simply strolls in towards the infield. The runner can't tag up yet, because no out has been recorded.
I mean, I'm sure if it happened, the loophole would be closed immediately. But could you get away with it once?
The loophole was closed long ago. The runner can leave as soon as the fielder touches the ball, not when he catches it.
Back in the early days, the rule did indeed require possession, and one outfielder (I believe King Kelly, because he specialized in #### like that, God bless him), would do just as you said, intentionally juggling the ball while he jogged toward the infield.
I'm not saying they shouldn't talk about the Redskins at all (yeah right), but it sure would be nice if this team was treated as more than just a distracting side note. They're getting more attention nationally now than they are in their own town, and it just drives me up the freaking wall.
Anyway, I wanted to hijack this thread for something bothering me since Trout robbed Hardy earlier this year. Here's the Trout catch.
Now I remember that in 2010, Nyjer Morgan made a nearly identical catch at nearly the identical location at Camden Yards. Morgan's catch.
In my opinion, Morgan's catch was better but YMMV. Yet people act as if nothing like Trout's catch had ever been done before, when I think it had.
106.7 WJFK is truly terrible in this regard. It's the official Nationals station (broadcasts their games), and yet every show is geared towards the Redskins. It's particularly insulting in the afternoon with "LaVar and Dukes," namely former Redskin LaVar Arrington and some guy...their lack of interest in any sport except football is practically BUILT IN to the concept of the show.
That said, the Washington Post has been pretty good about their Nats coverage this season. Boz is in fine form, they have a sharp beat writer (Adam Kilgore) on the team, and the Nats Journal blog is constantly updated and fairly interesting.
EDIT: One tiny thing I have noticed that I like: all of my favorite DC political reporters (both partisan and MSM) are obviously huge Nats fans, as evidenced by their Twitter feeds...every night at around 7:00PM or so their tweets change over from "here's the latest analysis of polling data" to "ZOMG DID YOU SEE WHAT ADAM LAROCHE JUST DID." I like that.
Not Elijah Dukes?
It's always like that when a player makes that type of catch. They're excellent, difficult, and spectacular to watch of course but somehow people forget that they've seen the exact same catch made a bunch of times before.
Random thing I've wondered before: What's Torii Hunter's reputation and GG collection like if the Metrodome had 10 ft. high walls? A significant part of his reputation came from robbing home runs/near home runs and the Metrodome was the perfect park to display that particular skill because the CF wall was pretty short.
Agree totally. And Amanda Comak at the Times does a pretty good job as well.
I suspect that the only way the predominant sports coverage around here might ever change for the better is if one of the other teams like the Nationals or Capitals can win a championship. Until that happens, the memories of the Gibbs era combined with Dan Snyder's massive fortune and ruthless, endless propaganda will probably keep things locked in place the way they are.
And yet it's literally the only thing worth talking about sports-wise in Washington, DC. (N.B.: Hockey is for Canadians and pussies, but then I repeat myself.)
In our intramural (work) softball playoffs last year, I tried this on our ump -- this guy is somewhat random on getting strikes, tags, forces called correctly but he does know the rulebook and doesn't like to be questioned.
Runner on first, line drive off the pitcher's glove and the ball was gloved at the 2B's shoetops. Whether the ball hit the ground first was really hard to tell. Our guy had taken off and was doubled at first.
After the discussion about the catch settled down (the ump swore he was watching the ball all the way and the 2B did indeed catch it), I then inquired about our guy not leaving 1B until the ball the hit the pitcher's glove -- this is a can't move until the ball goes by the plate. The ump said no, he was watching the runner the whole way ... :)
Isn't one of the sports talk stations owned by Snyder? If so, fat chance on that station.
Indeed. I guess I was spoiled by a decade of Andruw, but Bernadina's catch here is...nice? More than decent? Spectacular is not the right word for sure.
When Dan Reeves does football on the radio, he describes something as "unbelievable" on almost every play.
Can't make this stuff up, folks.
Are you ####### serious?
While I know it wouldn't happen, I'd love to see Rizzo simply hang up on the guy right there.
That is such a total dick move it really is almost comical.
The proper response would be, "Nothing, I'm too busy building a playoff team, which the Redskins haven't had since Zombie Joe Gibbs left town."
When I was 7, and again when I was 11, I did not have to go to school for a day because my parents took me to watch the Redskins super bowl parade.
I got out of school because the Redskins were so awesome.
And a zillion other kids around here had that same experience. The Nats are great, and I'm really enjoying them, but they haven't actually been to the playoffs since the 20's or whatever. The Caps are "chokers". I've heard rumors of a basketball team around here, but I don't believe them.
It's going to take a long time to break the Redskins stranglehold on the sporting landscape around here.
You see why the WJFK radio guy thought, in all seriousness, that the best question to ask Mike Rizzo out of the gate today was about how excited he was for a stupid REDSKINS preseason game? This is the media market we're dealing with.
Actually, the unspoken truth as to why the Redskins coverage is so overwhelming around this area -- even when it becomes ridiculous in light of the Skins' guaranteed awfulness this year and the Nats undeniable impressiveness -- is because IT SELLS, and it sells because it's a matter of demographics: the DC area is heavily African-American, they listen to sports radio in much greater proportionate numbers than other demos, and they care far more about football, on average, than they do about baseball. Really, it's about giving the listeners what they want. It just doesn't happen to be what I want.
I beg your pardon? That would be difficult for a franchise that started in 1969.
The Washington Professional Baseball Team hasn't been to the playoffs since 1933.
Virginia till 99, then chicago till 04, New York till 09, then back here.
Come on dude. Seriously?
man, i remember that game. it was a real wow! moment. wasn't it a 1-0 game and the only hit the braves had was a dinger? well ... i'm trying to remember!
This is true, but that's not what was said. The Nats haven't been to the playoffs since 2005.
Come on dude. Seriously?
Yes, seriously. You can't pretend that this franchise has anything to do with the heritage of the Minnesota Twins.
You've convinced me. I'll go up to Baltimore and reminisce about Otto Graham and Bernie Kosar.
Yes. David Justice had put the Braves up 1-0 on a solo shot. Van Slyke drove a ball to deep RCF at the old AFCS. Nixon ran a mile into the gap, timed it, leaped the equivalent of Trout's leap to get halfway up the 14 foot wall, planted his left leg on the padding and leapt a second time off the wall itself and pulled back what would have been a game tying HR.
It was the best OF play I've ever seen, inclusive of Andruw Jones' original "Spiderman" catch against deep CF wall at the Ted.
a) Not being from Montreal (or Canada for that matter, although I am currently residing there, and will probably be leaving in the next year or two), I was nonetheless an Expos fan. So I sound like someone who wants to respect the impoverished legacy of Nos Amours.
b) Defying his reputation around here, Joey B's being very diplomatic. He's also right. What the current Nationals ought to represent is a new start for Washington baseball, a franchise whose Year Zero in 2005 has little to do with Expos, Greys, Twins or Rangers. It makes no sense to connect them more than tenuously to Washington's American-League baseball heritage. This is a National League team. It's currently a really exciting team, with a lot of attractive players going for it. Why on earth would one want to attach them to some sad-sack AL franchise whose main claim to fame is trying to sign Gore Vidal's first (and probably last) love?
But in a conversation about why the Nationals do not have the same market penetration as the Redskins, it is not helpful to pretend as though 2005 was the first time there was baseball here. This area has had a baseball team for longer than it hasn't had one, and the historic awfulness of those teams for many years is part of what led to the current Redskins domination, and much more relevant to the discussion than anything the Expos did.
Believe it or not, there are plenty of people around here who remember the Senators. Frank Howard is still a beloved local figure. I refuse to accept that the Minnesota Twins have any right to the memory of Walter Johnson.
While there is no team in Montreal, I like the Nationals honoring Andre Dawson and Gary Carter. If the Expos are ever resurrected, those memories and retired numbers go back to Montreal, where they belong.
Edit- I'll give some wiggle room for, say, the A's claiming Connie Mack or the Dodgers claiming Jackie Robinson. But a team changing its name when it moves is a clear attempt to divorce itself from its history, especially in this case where the name was deliberately chosen to associate it with the former franchise.
Then again, we do have the Utah Jazz and the L.A. Lakers.
It was also in the heat of a pennant race just when the Braves had started to get good. Another good one was Devon White's shoulda been a triple play in the World Series.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main