12/22/24
October 16, 2005
Manager Mike Scioscia makes a costly mistake!:
"With Konerko batting and first base open, Manager Mike Scioscia could have had Santana walk the cleanup hitter and face Carl Everett with the bases loaded. But Scioscia allowed Santana to pitch to Konerko, who had a two-run homer in the first in Game 3. Scioscia thought Santana could make good pitches to Konerko, a decision he probably regretted."
Ozzie Guillen's team, on the other hand, is playing good fundamental baseball :"Ozzie Ball" they call it. The players have the right attitude, and want this pennant more than their counterparts. They hustle 110%, they don't sulk about umpiring calls, they run the plays through and then wait for the umpires' calls, unlike the Angels, who "expect" to get the calls and do not finish the plays, either by not tagging the runner or not running at 100% when they expect an interfirience call, etc. In both cases, The Angels' players could have ended the controversial plays to their favor if they had followed some major sports principals - finish the play; do not assume anything; give 100%; and don't take anything for a given!The White Sox have had an amazing year, it is all very clear as to why: "Ozzie Ball"
posted by zippinglou to baseball at 05:24 AM - 29 comments
Wow, three straight complete games, when was the last time that happened in a championship series? Unfortunately I have to wait for a delayed broadcast of the game here in Europe, but from what I understand there was yet another play where an Angel player did not finish out a play because of a missed call (catcher interference). Is this just a symptom of pressure? I can't believe that these guys didn't hustle all year or they wouldn't be in the championship series. Anyway, congratulations to the Sox, let's see if Contreras can make it 4 in a row. Has that ever been done? By the way, I wonder if Konerko is going to see another hittable pitch the rest of the series....
posted by sic at 07:50 AM on October 16, 2005
The White Sox are getting alot of calls their way in this series. The baseball gods are smiling on the Sox and their fans. However, alot of the "bad calls" or errors that have blessed the White Sox this post season have come when there was still plenty of baseball to be played in the game. Graffinino's error, the Josh Paul call, the interference call, the Podsednik pick off at first and tag at second at Saturday's game, all had ball left to be played. Yes it puts a damper on a rally or takes the wind out of the sails. But come on, Boomer Wells still threw a homer to Iguchi after the Graffinino play, Crede still had to get the double after the dropped third strike call, and the calls Saturday still had alot of baseball to be played after the close and probably bad calls (Guerrero and Anderson still had several at bats after those plays). Ya just gotta suck it up and make another play. I'm a White Sox fan and I really think its our year. I don't want all this controversy following our wins, but hey, just play the game. Close calls have been going on for a century. Historically, those close calls have gone against us. It's the Chicago curse thing (ya gotta live here to know what I'm sayin). You either let it beat you, or ya come back. GO WHITE SOX!!!
posted by Shoalbaby at 07:55 AM on October 16, 2005
If I'm not mistaken, this is the first time in AL history three games in a row have been pitched. Four would be awsome. As for the bad call thing, I agree with what Scioscia, said the other nite it's just the human element of the game. GO SOX!
posted by volfire at 08:43 AM on October 16, 2005
The White Sox are winning games the way they have all year. Remember back in the beginning of the season when they had that streak of about 60 games where they were leading at some point during the game? That's the way they have played most of the year (minus of course that .500 ball they were playing from late August to mid-September). They get a lead on you and hold on. They win with pitching and defense, have all year. One run wins - nail biters. Sox fans have watched this ball all year long. Saturday's 8 to 2 win and the Boston opener were abberitions. We get the lead, play close, eek it out in the end. I thought it interesting when Konerko (I think it was him) said that at the beginning of the Boston series they were a little shaky thinking maybe they didn't belong in the post season. But now they believe they belong here. Look out National League. Houston may have a good pitching staff, maybe as good as the White Sox, but now that the confidence is flowing, and the pitching and defense are at a peak, I don't know how anyone can stop this train. I'm not slighting the Angels, and yes, maybe lightning can strike and the Angels can pull this series out, but ah..., nah, its over. No one has given the Sox their due all year. All year someone else was gonna beat them or do better than them. Minnesota or Cleveland will win the Central prognosticated the so called experts. Boston will humilite the White Sox said the media (even here in Chicago many columnist didn't give the Sox much of a chance). And when the Angels won game 1 of the ALCS, holy cow (no pun intended) the Sox were doomed to being swept out of the series. I'm sure WHEN the White Sox get to the World Series that yet, once again, they won't have a chance. They will be the mere mortals playing against the real pros. Once again they will be the pretenders. Keep on underestimating these White Sox. PLEASE, keep on taking them lightly. We still have something to prove and the lack of respect only makes each victory that much sweeter.
posted by Shoalbaby at 08:59 AM on October 16, 2005
I don't think any other team has underestimated the AL leader in wins, especially with the complete pitching staff they have. As for Guillen and "Ozzie Ball", I'll leave it at this: ". . . former Red Sox shortstop Rick Burleson – then managing in the International League – told me Guillen was the least knowledgeable skipper he had ever seen."
posted by yerfatma at 09:51 AM on October 16, 2005
The White Sox have totally outplayed the Angels in every aspect of the game, a few bad calls or not. Those calls have not made any difference in the outcomes. The Sox always get the hits and make the right plays. The ball in the dirt strikeout DID hit the ground. I watched it with Tivo in super slow motion about 20 times and you can clearly see the ball bounce up slightly into the mitt. No question. And no, I'm not a Sox fan.
posted by Double T at 10:17 AM on October 16, 2005
No one has given the Sox their due all year. All year someone else was gonna beat them or do better than them. I'm pretty sure nobody thought they were going to be beat on August 1st. We still have something to prove and the lack of respect only makes each victory that much sweeter. I didn't realize you were an employee of the White Sox. Those calls have not made any difference in the outcomes. Well, except for the first one where the White Sox get four outs in the bottom of the 9th inning of game 2. To suggest that call didn't affect the outcome is just silly. If it had happened in the top of the 9th (or a previous inning), then the Angels might have had a chance to respond and I might believe that it wasn't as big a deal. That wasn't the case here. I watched it with Tivo in super slow motion about 20 times and you can clearly see the ball bounce up slightly into the mitt. No question. Well, it was obviously a "question" for the umpire since he made the signal for swinging strike three and then the "out" fist pump (like he did in the previous 8 innings). However, he decided to change his mind at some point but didn't let anyone know until it was too late.
posted by grum@work at 10:53 AM on October 16, 2005
To me, it looked like the ball was on the ground in this closeup.
posted by kirkaracha at 12:19 PM on October 16, 2005
I watched it with Tivo in super slow motion about 20 times and you can clearly see the ball bounce up slightly into the mitt. No question. Please tell me where to find this super duper tivo.
posted by justgary at 03:04 PM on October 16, 2005
". . . former Red Sox shortstop Rick Burleson – then managing in the International League – told me Guillen was the least knowledgeable skipper he had ever seen." posted by yerfatma at 9:51 AM CST on October 16
Rick may just well be a bitter man to see that a fellow shortstop is managing in the Big Leagues, while he's still in the International League. On top of the fact that Ozzie has lead the White Sox back to the Pennant chase, which hisorucally in itself its a great acomplishment for the city of Chicago. I would rather listen to what others more expirienced have to say about Guillen:
R.Sandberg talks about Ozzie Ball vs. Expirience - Scroll down to the bottom of the page and hear what this hall of famer has to say about Ozzie's style of managing. Now, many are jumping on the White Sox band-wagon!
posted by zippinglou at 04:45 PM on October 16, 2005
Ryne Sandberg has more experience than Rick Burleson? Explain.
posted by yerfatma at 05:17 PM on October 16, 2005
Those calls have not made any difference in the outcomes. The white sox have played better, especially when it comes to starting pitching, but that statement is just completely wrong. Even being outplayed, if the ump doesn't make that call in the ninth (most people don't have your super tivo skills and believe the ball was caught) or if he made the correct signals it's completely possible the angels could have scratched out run in their half of the tenth and shut the door in the bottom. That would make the series 2-2. Big difference. They hustle 110%, they don't sulk about umpiring calls, they run the plays through and then wait for the umpires' calls, unlike the Angels, who "expect" to get the calls and do not finish the plays, either by not tagging the runner or not running at 100% when they expect an interfirience call, etc. I know, everytime the sox have gotten a bad call they've acted completely different than the angels. Wait. what bad calls?
posted by justgary at 05:18 PM on October 16, 2005
Ryne Sandberg has more experience than Rick Burleson? Explain. posted by yerfatma at 5:17 PM CST on October 16
How can you even dare to compare them.... well, nothing should surprise me from you! Never the less, it isn't just Sandberg saying that the White Sox are playing great under Ozzie's style !
posted by zippinglou at 06:00 PM on October 16, 2005
I watched it with Tivo in super slow motion about 20 times and you can clearly see the ball bounce up slightly into the mitt. No question. I saw the ball change direction as well, but it's pretty clear that it does so after entering the mitt (i.e. while being caught). JMHO. What made it a bad call wasn't the ump's decision (catch or bounce) but, as grum said, the fact that he quietly and internally changed the call while the ball was in play. What made it worse was that he and his supervisor refused to admit it post-game. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the human element of baseball, and would be upset to see any kind of instant replay. I'm also rooting for the White Sox, and I see Chicago broadly outplaying LAofA. It just kind of amazes me that so many capital-B bad calls are being made so lopsidedly. Are the umps just having really bad games?
posted by cl at 06:06 PM on October 16, 2005
Wait. what bad calls? After all, it wasn't a bad call.
posted by zippinglou at 06:09 PM on October 16, 2005
Wait. what bad calls? After all, it wasn't a bad call. Well, since it's not "proof" that the ball hit the ground, let's just assume (for your sake) that it does hit the ground. Then why did the umpire go through the same motions he had done numerous times that night and declare an "out"? The "bad call" isn't whether it was in the dirt or not. The "bad call" was him declaring the batter out (pointing for a swinging strike, pumping for an out) and then changing his mind. That's the "bad call". If he doesn't do that "pump", then the Angels have no real reason to argue (other than a judgement call about the ball in the dirt). Insisting that the ball hitting the dirt somehow absolves the umpire of blame is to completely miss the point of the Angels' complaint.
posted by grum@work at 07:23 PM on October 16, 2005
after all, it wasn't a bad call. You're part of about 1 percent of the population that doesn't believe the call was bad (in one way or another). To praise the white sox for reacting differently to bad calls when they really haven't had any is useless.
posted by justgary at 07:28 PM on October 16, 2005
How can you even dare to compare them.... well, nothing should surprise me from you! Never the less, it isn't just Sandberg saying that the White Sox are playing great under Ozzie's style ! At this point, I'm lost. You claim to be a Red Sox fan, yet you're now head cheerleader for Ozzie Guillen. Could you please, please quantify the Ozzie Guillen Effect for those of us to blind to see? All I see is a guy who overmanages at all times and takes any credit he can find. He's saddles with a decent lineup and maybe the best pitching staff in the majors. How is he doing it? And I still don't see why I can't compare Ryne Sandberg and Rick Burleson's experience since one has been in and around the pro game 7 years longer than the other. I'm not sure if you've read much of Ryno's writing on ESPN since he retired, but suffice it to say he shows up at FireJoeMorgan.com. I'm loving the fact you act as though I've kicked a bunch of puppies every time I disagree with "The Obvious".
posted by yerfatma at 07:44 PM on October 16, 2005
posted by yerfatma at 07:45 PM on October 16, 2005
He's saddles with a decent lineup and maybe the best pitching staff in the majors. How is he doing it? I agree. With three well pitched complete games there's not a whole lotta managing goin' on.
posted by justgary at 08:47 PM on October 16, 2005
My favourite Ozzie Guillen moment was when he made the choking sign to the Cleveland Indian fans during the last regular season series after it became apparent that the Indians weren't going to win the wild card. Nothing but classy!
posted by grum@work at 10:52 PM on October 16, 2005
At this point, I'm lost. You claim to be a Red Sox fan, yet you're now head cheerleader for Ozzie Guillen. Could you please, please quantify the Ozzie Guillen
Very simple: 1- I'm Venezuelan, same as Ozzie and Freddy garcia (that alone should be enough reason) , but I'll give you another one - 2.- The White Sox defeated the red Sox, and I sure hope they win it all, so i can at least know we lost to the best!
I agree. With three well pitched complete games there's not a whole lotta managing goin' on. - Like Ozzie didn't do his job on bringing this pitching staff together. let me tell you one thing, it wasn't the GM who put this great team together, it was Ozzie! He went out and got Garcia, Contreras and El Duke! He brought Iguchi and Konerko, and trusted his instincts as to how to set up his offense. That to me is managing! and not just the moves you make during a ball game. But yer, the bunt to advance every runner, and get an early run, is all part of his philosophy on how to play the game. Basic fundamentals of baseball, and great brass balls to make the moves that everyone else wouldn't dare to make. That is what in my mind sets him apart from the rest, and reason why TODAY htey have won the PENNANT!!!!!
As for yerfartma, I will not waste more time answering to you. You have been so wrong lately in every prediction you have made... I jusy hope you are pulling for Houston in the WS, cause then I will know for sure that the White Sox will win !
posted by zippinglou at 11:10 PM on October 16, 2005
Then why did the umpire go through the same motions he had done numerous times that night and declare an "out"?
The motion the umpire made was the strike motion, not the out! which is to be said out loud! Duh !!!!!! BTW, he never said "yer out"!
posted by zippinglou at 11:13 PM on October 16, 2005
The motion the umpire made was the strike motion, not the out! which is to be said out loud! Duh !! [and etc] What of the pitcher, first and second basemen, and right fielder, who are involved in a strike-three throw to first? Are they supposed to hear the umpire yell something over a possibly deafening crowd? What a craptastic system that would be. Luckily, that's not the system. Watch how he and all the other umpires do it (there was a clear example just tonight). They wait until the hitter has been tagged before doing the fist pump, because it means out.
posted by cl at 11:28 PM on October 16, 2005
And then follow all this up with the Angel's pitcher tagging the runner with his glove while holding the ball in his other hand. The ump had this wrong at first too. This crew might get assigned to the Little League World Series next year.
posted by Richie Bee at 11:55 PM on October 16, 2005
The motion the umpire made was the strike motion, not the out! which is to be said out loud! Duh !!!!!! BTW, he never said "yer out"! No, in fact, the pointing motion was the strike indicator, and the pump motion was the out indicator. There were numerous times during the game where he followed that pattern with absolutely no argument or confusion from anyone else on the field. This time, he deviated from his pattern, which is why it was a "bad call". I'm not sure why it's that hard for you to understand this. Just as a hint: saying "Duh !!!!!!" really isn't the best way to make a statement. People are much less likely to take you seriously. And then follow all this up with the Angel's pitcher tagging the runner with his glove while holding the ball in his other hand. The ump had this wrong at first too. This crew might get assigned to the Little League World Series next year. For that one, I don't blame the first base ump. From his angle it looks like Escobar holds the ball with his hand in the glove and then tags the runner (which is how you should tag someone, making sure the ball stays in the glove and making it easier to throw the ball afterwards). However, when one of the other umpires explained how he missed it, they did the right thing and changed the call.
posted by grum@work at 09:38 AM on October 17, 2005
No, in fact, the pointing motion was the strike indicator, and the pump motion was the out indicator
You're wrong! The pointing motions meant that the batter swang at the pitch and made no contact; the pump fist means it was a strike! But third strike doesn't equal an out automatically in that situation; it goes down as a "K", but if the runner gets on its not an "Out". That is why besides the "strike pump" the Umpire's yell the "OUT" or not, to allow the players know that the play ends or is still alive!
posted by zippinglou at 11:38 AM on October 17, 2005
You're wrong! The pointing motions meant that the batter swang at the pitch and made no contact; the pump fist means it was a strike! But third strike doesn't equal an out automatically in that situation; it goes down as a "K", but if the runner gets on its not an "Out". That is why besides the "strike pump" the Umpire's yell the "OUT" or not, to allow the players know that the play ends or is still alive! You do realize they have hand signals so all the players on the field can see the ump without having to hear him, right? And that on at least 3 other occassions in that game, he did the "point and pump" to indicate a swinging strike and an out, right? And let's look at your explanation a bit more logically, shall we? The pointing motions meant that the batter swang at the pitch and made no contact; He does the same motion for a swinging strike and a "looking" strike. He does the same motion for the first strike, the second strike and the third strike. Therefore, it's got nothing to do with the "swing" or the fact that it's the 3rd strike. the pump fist means it was a strike! He only does the fist pump on the third strike. He doesn't do the fist pump on the other strikes. He does the fist pump after a player has been declared out (by looking, swinging or foul tip). So it means it's a declaration of an out. You'd have him doing three different motions (swing, strike, out). At no point in the game did that umpire (or any other I've ever seen) do anything of the sort. And finally:MLB Rules, 9.05(a): Wait until the play is completed before making any arm motion. His "pump" was the indication that the play was completed, and the batter was out. Until, of course, Pierzynski pulled a mental whammy on him.
posted by grum@work at 02:18 PM on October 17, 2005
[The White Sox] don't sulk about umpiring calls Have any calls gone against the Sox this series?