Comments on: Goodness

By: RIYank

RIYank — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:07:15 +0000

[44] Whoa.
Well, as the Mets will testify, Steve never did have an eye for talent.

By: 51cq24

51cq24 — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:51:40 +0000

[45] you definitely have a style, no wonder you went down south

By: Raf

Raf — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 21:44:52 +0000

[45] It makes sense if you think about it. Figure since she’s homely, she’d be grateful for the attention. It’s kinda like why I had such low standards in college. While my buddies would poke fun at me, I would note that “it looks like a line drive in the boxscore.”

Regarding the umpires, Fangraphs has an interesting solution
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/alcs-coverage-the-umps

Discuss

By: thelarmis

thelarmis — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:57:49 +0000

[46] yeah. she’s 22. i believe, he’s like 47-48, even though he looks older, ‘coz of his gray hair…

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:55:47 +0000

What’s really disturbing is how young she looks. Really looks like a kid.

By: thelarmis

thelarmis — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:52:26 +0000

[44] yikes! the “Silver One” doesn’t have very good taste. oh well…

she’s the anti future Mrs. Zack Greinke. that guy…WINS !!! : o

emily kuchar…pretty WOW!

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:32:57 +0000

[43] Don’t click if you’ve recently eaten:

http://theproducers.weei.com/sports/boston/dennis-and-callahan/will-people-ever-learn/

By: thelarmis

thelarmis — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:18:22 +0000

[42] no, i didn’t. do you have a link to a picture of her?! wasn’t he involved in an extra-marital affair back when he was the Muts GM?

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:15:16 +0000

[41] Have you seen the photo? She’s the exact opposite of a goddess (last night’s discussion). She looks like a man.

Any quotes from Phillips about A-Rod’s friend previously that we can now bludgeon him with?

By: thelarmis

thelarmis — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:09:14 +0000

[36] be thankful, my man – i’d kill for more work right now…

meanwhile, steve phillips has cheated on his wife…yet again. this time a relationship w/ a girl who works at espn. phillips has taken a leave of absence from the station.

1 down, morgan, buck, caray, timmay to follow… ; )

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 20:01:59 +0000

[34] I don’t what to say beyond what has already been said. He did something highly unusual during a play that is usually by the book (and for good reason). He was supposed to stand on the base like everyone else does. Posada, the catcher, the ump – everyone assumed he’d go ahead and do what you’re supposed to do there, and acted accordingly, perhaps even Posada running off the bag. He may not have seen Cano’s foot STILL wasn’t on the bag. (I’m not excusing Posada because he’s an idiot, at least for running towards home in the first place.)

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:58:34 +0000

[37] The runner’s *foot* has to be in the fovea. That’s impossible unless the ump is lying on the ground and looking out at CF and the base at the same time.

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:58:12 +0000

[37] Thanks for picking up here, i don’t have it in me at the moment.

By: a.O

a.O — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:53:24 +0000

[33] Positioning *does* matter. It is the only thing that matters. The way you make that call is to get down the line in foul territory so that both the CF and the runner are in your fovea. It is really very simple. No excuse for someone who has been umpiring that long.

By: seamus

seamus — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:53:10 +0000

such a beautiful day. the real travesty is that i’m at work.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:49:17 +0000

[31] But let me amend that, if the ump watched the ball on the Po/Cano play, he gets the call right. When the ball touches Cano (via Napoli’s mitt), Cano wasn’t on the bag. He’s out. Then when the ball touches Po, he’s out.

By: seamus

seamus — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:48:07 +0000

[23] i don’t understand how cano created any confusion. Po stands on the base, one of them gets called out. no big deal. Why was Po surprised to see him there? Of course his job is to advance. And Po runs past the bag? I can see no logic in that whatsoever. It doesn’t matter, but hard to fathom how this is principally more Cano’s fault than Posadas. In what situation ever in baseball is it ok to run past third base and stand there?

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:42:13 +0000

[29] And positioning doesn’t matter. You can only focus on one place at the same time. Seeing a foot on a bag requires the same detail-oriented vision (the fovea) as seeing a ball in a mitt. That they’re often 100 to 200 feet apart makes it that much harder.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:40:17 +0000

[29] You can see alot with peripheral vision – close to a full 180 degrees. Just because you’re not looking at something doesn’t mean you don’t see it.

Try this experiment. Look straight ahead. Have a friend or co-worker wiggle their finger in your periphery. You’ll see it pretty far out. Now have them write a letter on a note card and put it in the same spot you saw the wiggling finger. See how long it takes you to identify the letter as they move it to directly in front of your face.

There’s really only one way to judge the tag up. You have to watch the fielder to determine when he catches the ball AND you have to look for “early” movement from the runner. The problem for Swisher is he moves but he hasn’t left the base. That’s impossible for any ump to see properly. Perfect example where if you want the right call you absolutely need technology. The human is flawed. There’s also no way for two umps to coordinate to get it right since neither can see what the other sees at the same exact time.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:34:53 +0000

[28] Exactly. But Swisher makes it harder to see the correct call. We can’t ignore that.

As for Cano vs. Po, it’s the same problem. The ump can only look one place at a time. Every human has the same limitation.