"A New York Treasure" --Village Voice

Tough Town, Good Eats


Philly it is.

world series 2-nolaurel

Poster can be found at Sports Propaganda.com.

Share: Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email %PRINT_TEXT


1 RagingTartabull   ~  Oct 30, 2009 11:50 am

I mentioned it last night, but if anyone hasn't seen Costas' sitdown with Jeter, Mo, and Posada it really is great stuff and worth a couple of minutes:


2 a.O   ~  Oct 30, 2009 12:08 pm

I have had enough of banterers sucking Pedro's dick. Shut up already. The only comparison he deserves is to a school in the summertime, cause he's got no class.

3 Alex Belth   ~  Oct 30, 2009 12:11 pm

He might not have any class, but the facts are the following: he is a great showman and he is one of the best pitchers of ALL TIME. Not just our era, but EVER. A little dick sucking is not inappropriate all considering.


4 51cq24   ~  Oct 30, 2009 12:21 pm

[3] i think it's fair to say that he is (or was) the best pitcher of all time.

5 unmoderated   ~  Oct 30, 2009 12:44 pm

those 1999 and 2000 years in Boston are surreal. The numbers are mind-boggling. You don't have to like the guy, but you have to at least respect his talent.

6 Sliced Bread   ~  Oct 30, 2009 12:58 pm

I've always preferred to ignore Pedro, not give him the attention he seeks, but last night was a great story, and he was a central character. For me, Burnett was the star of the show and it was unfortunate that he had to share the stage with Pedro.
But if you buy into the narrative that this postseason is about exorcising demons (Angels, ARod's postseason struggles) it's perfectly fitting that the road to a championship should pass through Pedro. He's the Joker to our Batman. Let's foil him one more time for the road!

7 LHerman   ~  Oct 30, 2009 12:59 pm

I'm a Yankee fan who spent four years going to school in Fluffya, and it is obvious to me that the picture you have up here is of a fake cheesesteak. That is NOT the cheese of a real Philly cheesesteak.

8 RagingTartabull   ~  Oct 30, 2009 1:05 pm

how have we not had the great Pat's vs Geno's debate yet?

I vote for Pat's. Mostly because Joey Vento is a wretched human being.

9 Just Fair   ~  Oct 30, 2009 1:34 pm

If Bob Gibson switched eras with Pedro I'd probably respect Pedro and hate Gibson. Instead it's vice versa. But since I had to suffer through both Pedro's incredibly pitched games and headhunting. eff him. And Gibson is a legend in my mind b/c he was long before my time. And so it goes.....

10 cult of basebaal   ~  Oct 30, 2009 1:36 pm

mmm ... cheesesteak.

might have to get one for lunch.

11 monkeypants   ~  Oct 30, 2009 1:41 pm

Dead horse warning:

Several articles are claiming this morning that the umps conferred after the blown call on Johnny's line drive, but that they ultimately decided the correct call had been made.

Now, it seems to me that the very fact they conferred indicates the possibility that the umps would have overturned the initial call (had for example one of the other umpires had a better view than the 1B ump). But if that's the case, one has less ground to object to the introduction of replay on such a play for the reason given last night by some posters: that the players may have reacted differently after the initial call was made, so you can't go back and reconstruct what would have happened. Rather, it seems to me that umps are already empowered to do this very thing, and if so, I would want them to be able to confer using video replay rather than just the other eyes on the field.

12 51cq24   ~  Oct 30, 2009 1:55 pm

[11] i think this is one of the best cases for replay, since it refutes not only the objection you cite but also the one that says replay would take too much time. if the umpires are going to gather and chat for 2-3 minutes with the possibility of doing exactly what they would do with replay, there is absolutely no reason to not allow replay.
on the other hand, they may have gathered and decided that the play was called incorrectly but that they had to let it stand because somehow you couldn't know what howard would have done had the correct call been made. it's highly unlikely that they decided that, but we can't know 100%! (and anyway, if they did decide that, they could have decided the same after seeing the correct replay)

13 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 30, 2009 2:02 pm

[11] About what did they confer? Maybe one of the reasons they didn't overturn the call is because they collectively agreed that they could not overturn the call and deconstruct the play.

14 monkeypants   ~  Oct 30, 2009 2:12 pm

[13] That's not teh story the umps are giving:

Umpire Brian Gorman, standing behind the 6-foot-4 Howard, immediately threw his arm up to indicate the ball was caught in the air, but TV replays indicated it bounced into Howard's glove.

"Did I catch it?" Howard said after the Yankees' 3-1 victory that evened the World Series at one game apiece. "Well, he called him out." Howard took a few steps toward first before throwing to shortstop Jimmy Rollins, who tagged Jorge Posada to complete the inning-ending double play. Posada stood on second for a few moments before bounding off the base to protest the call, and manager Joe Girardi came out of the dugout to argue.

The umpires gathered in the infield after the players returned to their dugouts, but the ruling stood. "The objective is to get it right, we asked each other what we had seen and the replay confirmed we got it right," crew chief Jerry Davis said, according to the New York Post.


Clearly the umps gathered to see if the correct initial call was made and they agreed (wrongly) that it had been. They claim that the object is to "get it right," clearly showing a willingness to overturn the call. And they justified their corporate decision by appeals to replay (incorrect appeals, since the replay shows the call was incorrect).

Davis' words make no sense unless the umps were willing to change the call if someone saw it differently.

15 monkeypants   ~  Oct 30, 2009 2:21 pm

[14] Or this report:

Yankees Manager Joe Girardi argued vehemently and told his players not to take the field while the umpires conferred between innings, but none of the umpires saw the play differently,so the ruling stood.

“We looked at the replay and it looks like a catch,” said the crew chief Gerry Davis, who was the right-field umpire for Game 2.


This even more clearly indicates that the umpires conferred to decide whether to overturn the call. Their decision to uphold the call is couched entirely in terms of whether it was a catch or not, NOT in terms of whether such a call was reversible.

16 monkeypants   ~  Oct 30, 2009 2:36 pm

Finally, we can turn to the MLB rules themselves:

Rule 9.04 (c) If different decisions should be made on one play by different umpires, the umpire in chief shall call all the umpires into consultation, with no manager or player present. After consultation, the umpire in chief (unless another umpire may have been designated by the league president) shall determine which decision shall prevail, based on which umpire was in best position and which decision was most likely correct. Play shall proceed as if only the final decision had been made.

So, the umpires ALREADY have the power to reconstruct a play. Taking last night's game as an example, the 1B ump called Johnny out, but the 2B ump could have called him safe. Both calls may have influenced how the players reacted (where the ball was thrown, etc). After consultation, it could have been decided that the 1B ump was screened, so the 2B ump's call would stand. The bases would have been loaded with no outs, and play would continue as if only the final judgment had been made.

There seems to me no reason to exclude the possibility of including a replay official in the consultation...the rules certainly leave a lot of room to accommodate this, and in no way preclude it.

17 LHerman   ~  Oct 30, 2009 2:37 pm

Pat's was great, but too far. I hung out at Abner's.

18 williamnyy23   ~  Oct 30, 2009 2:59 pm

[14][15][16] If there ever is replay, hopefully Davis isn't put in charge of it. His quotes do leave open the possibility that the call might have been overturned (or maybe it is just bluster), but had that happened, it still creates the chance that the umpires could error in how they reconstruct the inning. I would much rather have the umpires just miss a call than wind up incorrectly tring to determine the aftermath.

Whether the umpires can or can't do it is really besides point. Besides, even if [16] does give them that authority (which I don't think that rule is really doing...rather it is referring to a play in which a definitive call is not made), I can never recall it being applied. So, kind of like how the rules prohibit a catcher from blocking the plate without a ball, it may only be dejur, not de facto.

19 monkeypants   ~  Oct 30, 2009 3:43 pm

[18] FWIW:

In a game in April 2008, between the Mets and the Braves (ttp://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/ATL/ATL200804050.shtml), the mets had bases loaded, one out. Reyes his a line drive to CF that was ruled a catch by the CF, who doubled off the Mets runner at 2B. However, the umps conferred and ruled that he had trapped the ball.

The runner from 3B was allowed to score, and Reyes was awarded 1B. The ther runners were only awarded one base each (so the bases remained loaded). The outs two and three were removed from the board.

Willie Randolf was upset that the runner from 2B was not allowed to score, which he would have if the call were made correctly to begin with.

Thus, this is a clear and recent example of the sort of compromise ruling that can apparently come out of an umpire conference and call-reversal. More evidence that doing the same with replay is practical and precedented.

The story:

Mets get rare overturned call
By Tom Bergeron
April 06, 2008, 3:00AM

ATLANTA -- It was clear on the television replays that Mark Kotsay had trapped the ball on his diving attempt of a Jose Reyes line drive. It was clear to just about everyone who happened to be watching the broadcast on television.

Nevertheless, Bruce Dreckman, at third base the umpire closest to the play, ruled it an out. Even worse for the Mets, the Braves doubled up a runner at second for the inning's final out. But after some vehement protesting by the Mets, the umpires reversed their decision -- a rarity in baseball after the players had already left the field.

In the end, they credited Reyes with an RBI single, and allowed Ryan Church to score the easiest run of his career in a helmet-less stroll across home plate after he came back on the field.

When Randolph confronted Dreckman, the umpire initially did not want to ask for help from his fellow crew members.

"I started to blow a little bit of a gasket," Randolph said. "You got to ask for help, and he acted like you have to leave it like it is because 'where do we place the runners?'"

Angel Pagan, who was on second, would have scored easily on the single, a facet of the play that still left Randolph perturbed. The Mets ended up scoring two runs in the inning, but it ended up being a moot point in the Braves' 11-5 victory.

20 51cq24   ~  Oct 30, 2009 5:10 pm

[19] yeah, but that's a relatively easy and uncontroversial one since it's a line drive to the outfield and he had no other possible play. the tricky ones are more like last night's, when a fielder has various options and can be influenced by the umpire's initial call. like i said last night, if howard had actually run to 1st to double off posada, then it would be very tricky to figure out how to correct the situation when replay shows he hadn't made the play.

21 monkeypants   ~  Oct 30, 2009 5:19 pm

[20] Indeed, it's tricky. I'm just pointing out that precedents already exist for such "reconstructions' and overturned rulings. So there is no little reason to argue that replay could not be brought into the mix, or that compromise rulings (player X scores but player Y only is awarded 3rd base) are not already accommodated by the rules of the game.

22 Evil Empire   ~  Oct 30, 2009 9:57 pm

[8] I was in Philly last month and surveyed people about where to get a cheesesteak. I was universally told that pat's and geno's are for tourists and people from jersey.

I was advised to try
Jims on south and 4th and Tony Lukes in the ballpark. They're both GREAT if anyone is heading to shitholeadelphia (c).

feed Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share via email
"This ain't football. We do this every day."
--Earl Weaver