Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

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

Wednesday, October 20, 2021

Nathan Eovaldi, Boston Red Sox take issue with pivotal ball-strike call in loss to Houston Astros

Red Sox pitcher Nathan Eovaldi took two steps toward the dugout when his 1-2 curveball against Houston Astros catcher Jason Castro landed in the glove of catcher Christian Vazquez close to the top-right corner of the strike zone. With two outs already in the ninth inning, Eovaldi momentarily believed he had stranded Astros shortstop Carlos Correa on second base and first baseman Yuli Gurriel on first, but plate umpire Laz Diaz never signaled the punchout that would have left the score tied at 2 heading into the home half of the inning.

Instead, the at-bat continued, with Castro eventually singling to center field, scoring Correa to give Houston a 3-2 lead in Game 4 of the American League Championship Series. Soon, the wheels fell off for Boston, which gave up seven runs in Tuesday’s final frame as the Astros won 9-2 to tie the series at two wins apiece and push it to at least a Game 6, which will be back in Houston.

“I thought it was a strike, but again, I’m in the moment. I’m trying to make my pitches,” Eovaldi said after the game. “I’m attacking the zone.”

While Boston took issue with the call, the chance of Eovaldi’s curveball being called a strike was 23%, according to ESPN Stats & Information research.

RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 20, 2021 at 10:21 AM | 39 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: red sox, umpires

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. villageidiom Posted: October 20, 2021 at 10:35 AM (#6047737)
There were far more egregiously bad calls than that all game, working against both teams.
   2. Moses Taylor hashes out the rumpus Posted: October 20, 2021 at 10:44 AM (#6047739)
Looks like one of the worst home plate umpire performances of the playoffs so far. Good news is he was consistently bad, I guess. By the win expectancy they use, that Eovaldi one was the 2nd worst call (the strike 3 to JD earlier in the game was worse.
   3. RoyalsRetro (AG#1F) Posted: October 20, 2021 at 10:44 AM (#6047740)
@JeffPassan
Home-plate umpire Laz Diaz has missed 21 ball-strike calls tonight, according to
@ESPNStatsInfo
. That is the most of any umpire this postseason. The green dot in the upper RH corner is the Eovaldi curveball that would've ended top of the ninth with the score 2-2.


https://twitter.com/JeffPassan/status/1450672423733506052
   4. Jose Has Absurd Goosebump Arms Posted: October 20, 2021 at 10:44 AM (#6047741)
12 calls against the Sox, 11 against the Astros. Ump Scorecards has it +0.8 for the Astros. That pitch to Castro was very much the definition of a borderline call (I think it was ESPN that says that pitch is called a strike 23% of the time). I wasn't (and still am not) particularly outraged by that one. When it was called a ball live I thought "yeah, wanted it but no biggie." Going 0 for 8 w/RISP is the bigger problem.

The headline is pretty misleading I think. The Sox privately I'm sure are seething but the comments are wonderfully bland.
   5. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 20, 2021 at 11:17 AM (#6047755)
12 calls against the Sox, 11 against the Astros. Ump Scorecards has it +0.8 for the Astros. That pitch to Castro was very much the definition of a borderline call (I think it was ESPN that says that pitch is called a strike 23% of the time). I wasn't (and still am not) particularly outraged by that one. When it was called a ball live I thought "yeah, wanted it but no biggie." Going 0 for 8 w/RISP is the bigger problem.

The headline is pretty misleading I think. The Sox privately I'm sure are seething but the comments are wonderfully bland.What's also misleading is the Umpires Scorecard that says that the overall effect of all those bad calls was to give Houston 0.8 runs.


I was rooting for the Astros, but Christ, how do you get 0.8 runs when 7 runs scored after the call that would've ended the inning with the score still 2-2?

Yes, the Red Sox bullpen imploded, but none of that would've happened without the call that triggered the rally.

I'm rooting for Houston, and IMO that key call was only marginally bad, but unless the game context is considered the effect of missed calls on particular games is often wildly undercalculated. Just bring in the robo-umps and put a stop to this BS.
   6. bunyon Posted: October 20, 2021 at 11:21 AM (#6047757)
Sometimes you kick a ball into the stands to save a run and sometimes the borderline call doesn't go your way. Them's the breaks.
   7. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 20, 2021 at 11:37 AM (#6047767)
Yeah, but when dozens of borderline calls are missed in any given game, it can kind of add up. Why have any kind of replay if "human error" is so casually accepted? Denkinger, Schmenkinger.
   8. dave h Posted: October 20, 2021 at 11:49 AM (#6047769)
The thing that puzzled me was how far off the Fox K zone was on that pitch. It showed it clearly outside, but then the overhead showed the ball entirely over the plate from front to back. I expected it to be much more accurate. Is that just that pitch, or just Fox, or what?
   9. bunyon Posted: October 20, 2021 at 11:55 AM (#6047772)
That's a good point, Dave. Why do we assume the graphic is accurate?

And, end of the day, the current rules are this for strikes: It's a strike if the home plate ump says it is.

All the Red Sox had to do is make another good pitch after the "missed" call. They didn't.
   10. Jose Has Absurd Goosebump Arms Posted: October 20, 2021 at 12:19 PM (#6047779)
I was rooting for the Astros, but Christ, how do you get 0.8 runs when 7 runs scored after the call that would've ended the inning with the score still 2-2?


Because the Red Sox were still allowed to get Jason Castro, Jose Altuve, Michael Brantley, Yordan Alvarez, Carlos Correa or Kyle Tucker out. Like bunion says, the Sox just needed to overcome like has happened in 150 years of baseball.

And dave's point is a good one. We assume the graphic has a degree of accuracy that I don't think is correct.
   11. Mayor Blomberg Posted: October 20, 2021 at 12:46 PM (#6047786)

And, end of the day, the current rules are this for strikes: It's a strike if the home plate ump says it is.

We may change the source of agency to a computer array, but called strikes will always be called ... or not. Pitchers cannot throw strikes; they throw pitches that batters swing through, are called strikes, or are fouled off with fewer than two strikes in the count.
   12. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 20, 2021 at 12:59 PM (#6047788)
I was rooting for the Astros, but Christ, how do you get 0.8 runs when 7 runs scored after the call that would've ended the inning with the score still 2-2?


Because the Red Sox were still allowed to get Jason Castro, Jose Altuve, Michael Brantley, Yordan Alvarez, Carlos Correa or Kyle Tucker out. Like bunion says, the Sox just needed to overcome like has happened in 150 years of baseball.

Well, duh. But the fact remains: Called third strike on Castro, no 7 runs. End of story. And no subsequent bad call could've "evened it out".

If Castro had taken the first pitch a foot outside and the umpire had called it a strike, and then Castro had singled on an 0-1 count, that would've been a case where an even worse call had no effect on the game.
   13. Nasty Nate Posted: October 20, 2021 at 12:59 PM (#6047789)
And, end of the day, the current rules are this for strikes: It's a strike if the home plate ump says it is.
What section of the rulebook are you citing?
   14. Steve Balboni's Personal Trainer Posted: October 20, 2021 at 01:04 PM (#6047792)
When you hit a triple with one out in one inning, top of the order coming up; and when you hit a double later in the game with one out, and Devers and Verdugo coming up; and you don't get a run in either inning - that's the bigger problem last night.

And if Renfroe's shot in the 1st inning down the 3rd base line isn't snagged by Bregman, then another run scores, you've got 2nd and 3rd...I mean, the Red Sox had everything go right for the last two games, and a lot of things went wrong after the first five batters last night. It kind of evens out (and I say that as a big Red Sox fan).
   15. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 20, 2021 at 01:05 PM (#6047793)
And dave's point is a good one. We assume the graphic has a degree of accuracy that I don't think is correct.

I think we can assume that robo-umps will correct the great majority of current incorrectly called balls and strikes. It's not the cases where the ball enters or misses the strike zone by a fraction of an inch, it's the ones where the pitch was a full ball width or more inside or outside the zone but still called incorrectly. And in a close game, one blatantly bad call like that can affect the outcome just as easily as a Denkinger-level call on the bases.
   16. SoSH U at work Posted: October 20, 2021 at 01:10 PM (#6047796)
And, end of the day, the current rules are this for strikes: It's a strike if the home plate ump says it is.


To be fair, that's what the strike zone has always been, regardless how desperate some are to believe that umpires today (see poster above) are somehow doing something different.
   17. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: October 20, 2021 at 01:17 PM (#6047800)
Why do we assume the graphic is accurate?

The base assumption that the robot umps are 100% accurate is also wrong. The robot ump still depends on human inputs.

Then they use the robot ump results to measure the accuracy the human results.
   18. villageidiom Posted: October 20, 2021 at 01:25 PM (#6047801)
I was rooting for the Astros, but Christ, how do you get 0.8 runs when 7 runs scored after the call that would've ended the inning with the score still 2-2?
By the same token, why is Castro credited for 1 RBI on that single instead of 7 RBI? All those runs that scored after his single wouldn't have happened if he'd gotten out.
   19. Moses Taylor hashes out the rumpus Posted: October 20, 2021 at 01:27 PM (#6047802)
The thing that puzzled me was how far off the Fox K zone was on that pitch. It showed it clearly outside, but then the overhead showed the ball entirely over the plate from front to back. I expected it to be much more accurate. Is that just that pitch, or just Fox, or what?

I remember TBS having a really bad K zone for years. But I could have sworn that pitch last night showed as a strike on the K zone, which is why they talked about it so much. And it was - the video is in the link for the thread, and it clearly hits right at the corner of the zone (though the line is pretty faint). I also think the overhead camera might be angled a little since it obviously isn't directly over home plate.
   20. dave h Posted: October 20, 2021 at 01:45 PM (#6047807)
You're right, it does catch their K zone, though not as clearly as the overhead. And while I'd be shocked if the overhead is off left/right, it is angled back a bit so it appearing directly over the plate means it's actually a little deeper. Given movement from outside toward the plate, that could explain most of the discrepancy. I think the K zone putting it just on the corner, combined with thinking he threw a curve around the plate, led to my surprise at the overhead view.

I am 100% in favor of the robot strike zone. But at the very least, can we have umpires who are actually good at calling balls and strikes working the playoffs? I wouldn't blame the Sox loss on the strike zone, but this was all an entirely predictable result of having Diaz behind the plate.
   21. Jose Has Absurd Goosebump Arms Posted: October 20, 2021 at 01:50 PM (#6047808)
but this was all an entirely predictable result of having Diaz behind the plate.


For me THIS is where roboumps can be used. Let's use these tracking systems to identify the good and bad umps and get the good umps in there in the post-season. I get that the umpires' union won't like but MLB needs to stand firm on this. "The best umpires as judged by X, Y and Z are working the post-season" is not something that needs to be complicated in a CBA. I'm as pro-union as the next guy but come on, I would love to see the ESPN interview with the head of the Umpire Union where that person has to say "sure, we know people want to see the best umps, but really every ump should be allowed to do it." Add a laugh track and you'd have comedy gold. ####, get the kid running Umpire Scorecards to do all this stuff.
   22. Jose Has Absurd Goosebump Arms Posted: October 20, 2021 at 01:56 PM (#6047809)
Well, duh. But the fact remains: Called third strike on Castro, no 7 runs. End of story. And no subsequent bad call could've "evened it out".


Baloney. In the second inning the Sox had a man on first with one out. The third most impactful call of the night per umpscorecards went against Houston. It should have been strike three to Schwarber but instead was ball three. Schwarber worked a walk. The Sox had the EXACT same opportunity to take advantage of the situation, better really given that Schwarber is a better hitter than Castro. Instead after the walk instead of giving up five straight hits Raley retired Hernandez and Devers to end the inning. Both teams had their chances, the Sox failed to take advantage, the Astros did.

"Blame the umps" is nothing more than people thinking they are entitled to perfection. As I tell the 10 year olds I coach regularly you are old enough to know life's not fair. #### happens (I usually say "stuff" there) and you gotta deal with it. Eovaldi didn't last night and Raley did and that's the ballgame.
   23. Rally Posted: October 20, 2021 at 02:07 PM (#6047811)
The call actually saved the Red Sox 3 runs.

This is because it would have been the third out, preserving a 2-2 tie. The Astros would have held the Red Sox scoreless in the bottom 9th, but then score 10 runs in the 10th to win 12-2, instead of 9-2.

Apparently it wasn’t even a bad call. If it’s got a 23% chance of being called a strike, then 77% it’s a ball.
   24. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 20, 2021 at 03:14 PM (#6047831)
Looks like one of the worst home plate umpire performances of the playoffs so far. Good news is he was consistently bad, I guess.
Worth noting that Diaz’s Consistency Score was 97%, above the MLB average of 96%, which probably explains why the calls evened out. I wonder if his calls are that consistent from game to game, or just within this game. My impression is that Diaz isn’t a stellar umpire, but teams should probably be able to adjust to ‘his strike zone’ if he’s that consistent.
   25. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 20, 2021 at 03:20 PM (#6047832)
Well, duh. But the fact remains: Called third strike on Castro, no 7 runs. End of story. And no subsequent bad call could've "evened it out".

Baloney. In the second inning the Sox had a man on first with one out. The third most impactful call of the night per umpscorecards went against Houston. It should have been strike three to Schwarber but instead was ball three. Schwarber worked a walk. The Sox had the EXACT same opportunity to take advantage of the situation, better really given that Schwarber is a better hitter than Castro. Instead after the walk instead of giving up five straight hits Raley retired Hernandez and Devers to end the inning. Both teams had their chances, the Sox failed to take advantage, the Astros did.


Apples and oranges. You're talking about what might have happened; I'm talking about what actually did happen.

"Blame the umps" is nothing more than people thinking they are entitled to perfection. As I tell the 10 year olds I coach regularly you are old enough to know life's not fair. #### happens (I usually say "stuff" there) and you gotta deal with it. Eovaldi didn't last night and Raley did and that's the ballgame.

That's an excellent philosophical point, and I'm glad that Eovaldi has the same perspective, because to do otherwise does a player or manager no good. But regardless of every other "might have" or "could have" that "might have" or "could have" affected the outcome of last night's game, there was only one "bad" call** that set the stage for 7 Astros runs. No "might haves" or "could haves" can change that.

** Which may or may not have been called incorrectly, but I'm assuming that it was for sake of argument.

For me THIS is where roboumps can be used. Let's use these tracking systems to identify the good and bad umps and get the good umps in there in the post-season. I get that the umpires' union won't like but MLB needs to stand firm on this. "The best umpires as judged by X, Y and Z are working the post-season" is not something that needs to be complicated in a CBA. I'm as pro-union as the next guy but come on, I would love to see the ESPN interview with the head of the Umpire Union where that person has to say "sure, we know people want to see the best umps, but really every ump should be allowed to do it." Add a laugh track and you'd have comedy gold. ####, get the kid running Umpire Scorecards to do all this stuff.

So if robo-umps can be used to identify the good umps and the bad umps, why not just use these same robo-umps in the first place and eliminate the middleman? Of course this is assuming that you want to maximize the number of correct ball and strike calls, and aren't just wanting to cling to tradition for its own sake. (Which is a perfectly valid position, as long as it's openly expressed.)
   26. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 20, 2021 at 03:23 PM (#6047835)
Worth noting that Diaz’s Consistency Score was 97%, above the MLB average of 96%, which probably explains why the calls evened out. I wonder if his calls are that consistent from game to game, or just within this game. My impression is that Diaz isn’t a stellar umpire, but teams should probably be able to adjust to ‘his strike zone’ is he’s that consistent.

The description that was used for the Yawkey era Red Sox: 25 players, 25 cabs.

The description of today's home plate umpires: 76 umpires, 76 strike zones.
   27. The Yankee Clapper Posted: October 20, 2021 at 03:26 PM (#6047838)
Which may or may not have been called incorrectly, but I'm assuming that it was for sake of argument.
If you can’t tell whether it was a bad call, it’s not really a bad call, and not much of an argument.
   28. SoSH U at work Posted: October 20, 2021 at 03:29 PM (#6047840)
The description of today's home plate umpires: 76 umpires, 76 strike zones.


See.
   29. Jose Has Absurd Goosebump Arms Posted: October 20, 2021 at 03:30 PM (#6047841)
So if robo-umps can be used to identify the good umps and the bad umps, why not just use these same robo-umps in the first place and eliminate the middleman? Of course this is assuming that you want to maximize the number of correct ball and strike calls, and aren't just wanting to cling to tradition for its own sake. (Which is a perfectly valid position, as long as it's openly expressed.)


1. Because I'm not sold that the roboump zone is as accurate as we pretend it is for these discussions.

2. Because roboumps will slow the game down further. Not dramatically but if you think of the slowest umpire ever (Tim McClelland I guess) the calls being made then communicated to the onfield umpire then to the players is going to be ever so slightly slower. Not a huge amount but I think the game is slow enough already.

3. Because the game becomes vastly different at the pro level than at other levels.

4. Because for me catcher framing is a feature not a bug. I like that some guys are good at it and some guys aren't.

5. Because we have no idea if roboumps will make the game better or worse. None whatsoever. Precision and perfection does not necessarily make for a better entertainment product. I think a more precise zone will result in fewer swings than we already have because hitters will be able to lock in on the zone. I might be wrong. We don't know but in order for automated umpires to make sense we have to start with the assumption that it will and there is no reason to think that.

Apples and oranges. You're talking about what might have happened; I'm talking about what actually did happen...

But regardless of every other "might have" or "could have" that "might have" or "could have" affected the outcome of last night's game, there was only one "bad" call** that set the stage for 7 Astros runs. No "might haves" or "could haves" can change that.


It's not apples and oranges. Both teams got the exact same situation, a player was not struck out that should have. The difference is the Sox went BB-K-FO and the Astros went 1B-BB-2B-BB-1B-1B-1B. One team took advantage of their break, one team didn't.
   30. Rally Posted: October 20, 2021 at 03:48 PM (#6047850)
Both of those walks were also intentional. Both batters who received them came around to score. One was Gurriel. A full turn of the batting order later, Gurriel made the last out.
   31. Jose Has Absurd Goosebump Arms Posted: October 20, 2021 at 03:56 PM (#6047853)
The Altuve walk wasn't intentional. Gurriel's IBB came before the missed call to Castro. Bregman's walk, the second on that 7 batter sequence, was intentional.
   32. Darren Posted: October 20, 2021 at 04:28 PM (#6047858)
One of the most important points here is what Jose said above about the headline: Eovaldi didn't exactly 'take issue' with the calls. They noted their disagreement but admitted that they were in a competing mindset.

On the importance of this call and whether the game hinged on it: Yes, it was pretty pivotal but as others have noted, there were plenty of other factors that contributed to the result here. For me, it was mostly a feeling of frustration because 1) it was one of a few things that went wrong that inning, including Renfroe just plain missing a fly ball, and b) Diaz seemed so generous in some ways (wide strikes against Martinez, etc) and so stingy here. He really seems like a bad umpire who should not be working in the postseason.

Umps/Robo-umps/etc: Diaz does seem pretty bad, yes. But I wonder what would happen if he and other poor umps were let go and replaced with better umps or even robo-umps. My guess is we would quickly get used to the higher level of accuracy and that we would focus on whatever shortcomings the new umps (or robo-umps) had. Put another way: will we ever be happy with umpiring or is complaining about umps just a way for us to vent our frustrations with life in an imperfect world?
   33. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 20, 2021 at 11:09 PM (#6048002)
1. Because I'm not sold that the roboump zone is as accurate as we pretend it is for these discussions.

It's certainly going to be more accurate and consistent than 76 personalized strike zones.

2. Because roboumps will slow the game down further. Not dramatically but if you think of the slowest umpire ever (Tim McClelland I guess) the calls being made then communicated to the onfield umpire then to the players is going to be ever so slightly slower. Not a huge amount but I think the game is slow enough already.

I'm pretty sure that the technology will make the gap between "instruction" and signaling no longer than the time gap that many umpires already have.

3. Because the game becomes vastly different at the pro level than at other levels.

Not even sure what you mean by that, and how it matters.

4. Because for me catcher framing is a feature not a bug. I like that some guys are good at it and some guys aren't.

I admire the skill, but then I also admire pitchers who can get away with throwing spitballs. This is just a case where we differ on whether we want strikes to be determined by the strike zone or by a catcher.

5. Because we have no idea if roboumps will make the game better or worse. None whatsoever. Precision and perfection does not necessarily make for a better entertainment product. I think a more precise zone will result in fewer swings than we already have because hitters will be able to lock in on the zone. I might be wrong. We don't know but in order for automated umpires to make sense we have to start with the assumption that it will and there is no reason to think that.

And I also could be wrong, but I think that a more precise strike zone will result in fewer "gifted" strikeouts, pitchers being forced to throw more balls over the plate as a result, and contact levels then going up.

Think about it: With some exceptions, hitters who are skilled in "locking in the zone" generally don't swing at as many bad pitches, and hitters seldom make good (or any) contact with pitches outside the zone. You want to reward catchers for pitch framing. I want to reward hitters who don't chase pitches outside the strike zone.

It's not apples and oranges. Both teams got the exact same situation, a player was not struck out that should have. The difference is the Sox went BB-K-FO and the Astros went 1B-BB-2B-BB-1B-1B-1B. One team took advantage of their break, one team didn't.

Well, yes. The only "difference" was 7 bleeping runs!

I'm not making excuses for the Sox, and I'm not denying that many other factors contributed to their loss. And I'm not even saying that the call was incorrect. But no matter how many times the point is attempted to be countered, the fact remains that if that Eovaldi pitch had been called a strike, the Sox would've come up with a chance to walk it off, rather than facing a 7 run deficit.
   34. Cooper Nielson Posted: October 21, 2021 at 04:17 AM (#6048023)
Apples and oranges. You're talking about what might have happened; I'm talking about what actually did happen.

But no matter how many times the point is attempted to be countered, the fact remains that if that Eovaldi pitch had been called a strike, the Sox would've come up with a chance to walk it off, rather than facing a 7 run deficit.

Well, we know what actually DID happen in the bottom of the 9th: The Red Sox didn't score.

Take away those 7 runs if you want, with Castro ending the top of the 9th inning with a strikeout, but if everything ELSE proceeds according to what actually happened, the Astros still get to bat in the 10th inning and they've got a walk, double, walk, single, single, single before their first out. So the Red Sox are facing a multiple-run deficit in the bottom of the 10th instead of the bottom of the 9th, and probably still lose.

Obviously we can't assume the game would have proceeded the same way in the bottom of the 9th or afterward if it had been a tie. There would've been different pitchers, different approaches, etc. But it seems pointless to speculate on what WOULD HAVE happened because it's entirely unknowable. If the Sox actually had a lead before all of this happened, I'd be more sympathetic.
   35. Smitty* Posted: October 21, 2021 at 09:53 AM (#6048055)
Why, exactly, do we have an article based on the premise that a pitch that is estimated to be called a ball 77% of the time, and was called a ball this time, was a missed call?

Oh, and don’t you hate pants?


   36. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 21, 2021 at 10:25 AM (#6048056)
Why, exactly, do we have an article based on the premise that a pitch that is estimated to be called a ball 77% of the time, and was called a ball this time, was a missed call?

Probably because more than 77% of the fans in Fenway were voicing vociferous disagreements with the call.
   37. dave h Posted: October 21, 2021 at 11:00 AM (#6048062)
Why, exactly, do we have an article based on the premise that a pitch that is estimated to be called a ball 77% of the time, and was called a ball this time, was a missed call?


Because it was a strike, and because the reason it is often called a ball is because umpires generally have oval strike zones, and if we want to reward pitchers for their ability to hit the corners of the strike zones that's a problem.

I don't think any of the Sox fans here are claiming it cost them the game - the opposite really. We're mostly just generally commenting that having a poor umpire working the plate in an ALCS game sucks.
   38. ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Posted: October 21, 2021 at 12:15 PM (#6048074)
I don't think any of the Sox fans here are claiming it cost them the game - the opposite really. We're mostly just generally commenting that having a poor umpire working the plate in an ALCS game sucks.

That's because (1) most Red Sox fans here are relatively reasonable, and (2) unlike the fans in the park, their reactions are based on greater knowledge of the pitch location. Even the fans in Fenway with phones didn't see the replay for several seconds, and they were reacting in real time to Eovaldi's walking towards the dugout.
   39. dave h Posted: October 21, 2021 at 04:58 PM (#6048163)
Relatively. :)

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Shooty would run in but these bone spurs hurt!
for his generous support.

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNBA 2021-2022 Season Thread
(1262 - 11:45pm, Dec 03)
Last: Hombre Brotani

NewsblogOT - November* 2021 College Football thread
(431 - 11:44pm, Dec 03)
Last: Brian C

NewsblogA’s reportedly eyeing Tropicana site for possible Strip ballpark
(27 - 11:30pm, Dec 03)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

NewsblogMLB, union stopped blood testing for HGH due to pandemic
(28 - 11:27pm, Dec 03)
Last: Barry`s_Lazy_Boy

Hall of MeritMock Hall of Fame Ballot 2022
(17 - 11:19pm, Dec 03)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogMLB Teams Spend Record $2.16 Billion in Month Before Lockout
(1 - 11:11pm, Dec 03)
Last: DL from MN

Sox TherapyLocked Out and Semi-Loaded
(16 - 9:17pm, Dec 03)
Last: The Duke

Newsblog'Chicago!' Stroman says he's joining Cubs
(50 - 9:16pm, Dec 03)
Last: The Duke

NewsblogJackie Bradley, Jr. back to Boston in deal with Crew
(20 - 8:53pm, Dec 03)
Last: NattyBoh

NewsblogFormer Cy Young Winner LaMarr Hoyt Reportedly Dies At 66
(69 - 8:41pm, Dec 03)
Last: Jay Z

NewsblogMasahiro Tanaka to remain with NPB's Tohoku Rakuten Golden Eagles for 2022 season
(2 - 8:32pm, Dec 03)
Last: vortex of dissipation

NewsblogMcCaffery: Jimmy Rollins, Ryan Howard passed Hall of Fame eye test
(79 - 8:30pm, Dec 03)
Last: cardsfanboy

NewsblogMarcell Ozuna was choking wife as cops burst in, police video shows
(39 - 5:30pm, Dec 03)
Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave)

NewsblogBaseball Hall of Fame ballot 2022: Alex Rodriguez, David Ortiz join; Bonds, Clemens, Schilling in final year
(97 - 4:51pm, Dec 03)
Last: taxandbeerguy

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 2021 Results
(6 - 4:24pm, Dec 03)
Last: DL from MN

Page rendered in 0.3068 seconds
48 querie(s) executed