If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Deadspin)   The human element in baseball - Part 2: The generous strike zone called during Jered Weaver's no-hitter   (deadspin.com) divider line 218
    More: Fail, strike zone, no-hitter, baseball  
•       •       •

3023 clicks; posted to Sports » on 04 May 2012 at 11:29 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



218 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-04 01:53:57 PM

IAmRight: YoungLochinvar: Quit being obtuse.

Well, why should we settle for anything less than complete accuracy?


Because then you might as well play with robots and then whoever was better on paper would win. You are taking this argument too far. There is some human element in the game and that should be the players on the field. There shouldn't be a human element in regards to something that is stated clearly in the rule book. There is no rule saying Matt Kemp has to hit 10 home runs a month or that Torii Hunter has to catch every fly ball within a 50 foot radius. But there is a rule that says a runner is safe if Todd Helton's foot is 2 feet off of first base when he catches the ball. That's the human element that needs to be removed from that game.
 
2012-05-04 01:54:18 PM

thomps: no, it is a sport that people watch for entertainment. do you feel good that your argument is that baseball is exactly like WWE?


You're not very good at following arguments.

Do you feel that going to the movies is "exactly like" going to a WWE event?
 
2012-05-04 01:54:20 PM

you have pee hands: Why do you make tons of posts in baseball threads when you don't like baseball?


Because it's fun to see baseball "fans" all upset about things that have gone on for the 150 years of their league's existence, and always acting like NOW it's a problem.
 
2012-05-04 01:55:41 PM

Slow To Return: Did I read ChimpNInja's graph incorrectly? Is the X-Axis not feet?


well, that whole box is the zone, the furthest away one looks about 8 inches from the zone.
 
2012-05-04 01:56:22 PM

MugzyBrown: thomps: no, it is a sport that people watch for entertainment. do you feel good that your argument is that baseball is exactly like WWE?

You're not very good at following arguments.

Do you feel that going to the movies is "exactly like" going to a WWE event?


no, because one is live-action while the other is pre-recorded. i would say that going to a WWE event is "exactly like" going to a play, though.
 
2012-05-04 01:57:02 PM

IAmRight: Because it's fun to see baseball "fans" all upset about things that have gone on for the 150 years of their league's existence, and always acting like NOW it's a problem.


Don't act like the technology to correct the problem has been around the same 150 years or that people haven't been butthurt over missed calls for the same 150 years.

You should change your handle to "IAmDevilsAdvocate" because it seems you've been taking the extreme opposite stance on just about every topic lately, for the lulz.
 
2012-05-04 01:58:33 PM

thomps: no, because one is live-action while the other is pre-recorded. i would say that going to a WWE event is "exactly like" going to a play, though.


Your definition of exactly is very inexact.

The MLB differs from the WWE in that the MLB is not pre-determined.

Thus I find the MLB to be entertaining and the WWE.

However, they are both entertainment events. If people didn't find the MLB entertaining, the MLB wouldn't exist.
 
2012-05-04 01:59:17 PM

IAmRight: Because it's fun to see baseball "fans" all upset about things that have gone on for the 150 years of their league's existence, and always acting like NOW it's a problem.


I remember Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz getting called strikes on pitches the catcher nearly had to dive for. It's always been a problem...but now there is technology that could completely solve that problem. That's why fans want a change.
 
2012-05-04 02:00:56 PM

IAmRight: thomps: if the only metric for baseball is attendance then every decision should be driven towards maximizing attendance.

Again, baseball was super okay with "cheating" until it became a legal and media nightmare. If people start suing over different strike zones, then there you go. You'll have machines keeping score.

Lawsuits and negative press are what make changes.


cheating has a long and glorious history in baseball. i know that you're referring to the steroid era, but one of the well accepted axioms of high level baseball is - if you aint cheating, you aint trying hard enough.

from boned bats, corked bats, spitballs of various types, emory balls of various types, to destroying the bottom of the batters box so the ump can't technically call you out of the box, you will see these at all ages of high-level baseball.

one of my favorite examples of this is the 2008 WS where Joe Blanton OBVIOUSLY had pinetar on his hat and was using it to get a grip on the ball, which is a huge problem in OctoberBall. What I loved the most is that he and Charlie Manuel pulled off the "We're just a bunch of dirty country bumpkins." in the interview after the game.

hell, i've taught 12 yr olds how to do emory balls, how to take advantage of scuffed balls, what racquetballs inside do to your metal bat, and ya know what - it's part of the game.

as for the changing strikezone, well, that too is part of the game. a pitcher with great control will get borderline pitches, and a wild thing will have a postage-stamp sized strikezone. Tear into an ump and see how your strikezone is the next at bat.

it's one of the reasons that baseball is a beautiful game, and there are deeper levels that the casual fan won't appreciate.

of course, some umpires are frigging ridiculous. Eric Gregg is one of the most infamous for having a wider strikezone than his own gut. Glavine wouldnt have been considered a great pitcher if he didn't get the 18" off the plate strike call all the time (which he never got in the playoffs).

the thing that drives me batty with umpires is when they make the game ABOUT them and not about the players. CB Bucknor, Joe West, I'm looking at you.
 
2012-05-04 02:01:14 PM

IAmRight: Slow To Return: Did I read ChimpNInja's graph incorrectly? Is the X-Axis not feet?

well, that whole box is the zone, the furthest away one looks about 8 inches from the zone.


Thanks, I completely missed that 0.0 was in the center of the plate and not the edge of the plate...
 
2012-05-04 02:01:17 PM

Slow To Return: You should change your handle to "IAmDevilsAdvocate" because it seems you've been taking the extreme opposite stance on just about every topic lately, for the lulz.


Nah, I just genuinely disagree with many people here, who take extreme stances on things not worth taking extreme stances on. A few balls called strikes isn't a big deal, even in the insignificance that is a baseball game.

MugzyBrown: The MLB differs from the WWE in that the MLB is not pre-determined.


As far as you know.

/save your arguments about how difficult it would be, I'm just joking
 
2012-05-04 02:01:28 PM

markyp09: That's why fans want a change.


No they don't. Most people don't care.

There's probably as many who want it as would be mad if they changed it... if not more that would be mad
 
2012-05-04 02:02:00 PM

MugzyBrown: The MLB differs from the WWE in that the MLB is not pre-determined.


right, which is why it makes no difference how consistent a "ref" in WWE is. you're trying to shift this into a place that the analogy was never meant to cover.
 
2012-05-04 02:02:30 PM
Since nobody seemed to do it I'll post the image of the strikezone for each type of batter (lefty and righty)
www.brooksbaseball.net
www.brooksbaseball.net
As can be seen and has been discussed in other places, the biggest difference is the outside for lefties gets called for more strikes. The lefty/righty data is much more consistent between teams.
 
2012-05-04 02:03:32 PM

markyp09: I remember Maddux, Glavine, and Smoltz getting called strikes on pitches the catcher nearly had to dive for. It's always been a problem..


It's so terrible, again, that established pitchers with a history of having had good control would get the benefit of the doubt in many situations!
 
2012-05-04 02:06:55 PM

IAmRight: A few balls called strikes isn't a big deal, even in the insignificance that is a baseball game.


Without going into the obvious difference a called ball or strike has on a 3-2 count, it's seems disingenous to imply that pitch counts aren't a huge part of the game. There's a noticeable difference between being up in the count 2-1 and being down in the count 1-2, or being up 3-1 vs 2-2.
 
2012-05-04 02:06:58 PM

IAmRight: A few balls called strikes isn't a big deal, even in the insignificance that is a baseball game.


Cody Ross would disagree with that.
60ft6in.com
 
2012-05-04 02:09:16 PM

WTF Indeed: I could be a dick right now and say that it must be hard being a functional retard who fixates on baseball stats so hard that they lose all sight of the game itself, but I won't because it's just a game.


Oh. Then good thing you weren't a dick.

WTF Indeed: Emotional attachment to a game is different in football than in baseball. In baseball there's another game tomorrow. In football everything rides on 16 games. Comparing the emotional investment football fans have to a single game to baseball is moronic. Football is a hype game, media spends a week hyping a game, therefore it has to be perfect on every level.


Ah. So it's OK to care about football outcomes but not OK to care about baseball outcomes. I see.

WTF Indeed: But it seems that you would rather infer that I'm not a real fan of the Yankees because my life doesn't revolve around their wins and loses.


I don't think anyone's does, excepting possibly the players and other paid staff. But keep farking that strawman.

But yes-- if you don't care at all who wins or loses a game, you aren't a fan of either team. That's somewhere in the common-sense definition of being a fan. You might be a fan of the sport, which is different.

But even if I'm watching, say, White Sox at Indians, and I don't give a crap about either team, it would detract from the game if the umpire was calling a terrible game, especially if it was lopsided towards one team or the other. If I'm watching a baseball game between random teams that I don't follow, I'm basically "rooting for excellence".

If a pitcher's throwing a perfect game, I don't want it taken away because the umpire misses a call. The pitcher beat the hitter-- he shouldn't have to beat the umpire as well. On the other hand, I don't want it preserved only because the umpire misses a call, because it cheapens the event.

I don't watch baseball for the umpires.

What's especially weird is that most people are OK with NFL instant replay, which exists for the same purpose-- encouraging fairness and improving consistency. And yet, it stops the game for several minutes several times per game. Many people are OK with this trade, even though it has a notable downside.

Changing to signaling the umpire on balls and strikes via PitchFx would not add a second to a baseball game.
 
2012-05-04 02:10:30 PM
Babwa Wawa: Whether I'm a football fan or not (it's definitely not my favorite sport), every sport in existence aside from baseball seeks to minimize the effect of human error on the outcome of the game.

False.
 
2012-05-04 02:12:23 PM

chimp_ninja: WTF Indeed: chimp_ninja: The image from the article. Everything you wrote is contradicted by it. Weaver's pitches are the squares. The Twins' pitches are the triangles. Only umpire's calls are shown-- balls or called strikes.

See the 11 red squares outside the zone, some of which are 8-10" off the black? Called Weaver strikes. See the one red triangle (barely) outside the zone? That was the only freebie given to the Twins all night.

Yes, I noticed that afterwards. And you of all people should know that if you don't use the strikezone an umpire gives you, you're a moron. You can toss that low and away pitch all night, he wasn't going to call it a strike no matter who you were.

You seem to be OK with the umpire picking a favorite pitcher and giving him preferential treatment.

I'm telling you, you'll love figure skating. They skip the middleman and just go straight to non-athletes deciding which athletes they think won.


I don't care whether they use technology for balls & strikes or not (my only argument against it is that I've never heard a properly cited source give the +/- errors of the current computer systems--presumably it's minimal, though), but I'm geniunely not seeing a strong bias towards one pitcher here. The umpire definitely was expanding the strike zone up and towards the left-hand batter's box (not coincidentally, this is also in the direction of where an umpire will set up his viewing angle when a right-handed batter is at the plate). One pitcher threw more pitches into this zone and the other didn't--that's the only difference here that I can see. The fact that Twins pitcher attempted to exploit this less than Weaver is a different discussion altogether, because there aren't anywhere near enough data points to draw any other meaningful conclusions (I know you guys are well aware of statistical significance from other threads I've read). Hell, the chart given in the link doesn't even show the difference in calls for a left-handed or right-handed batter, unless I'm missing something. That would be kind of important for an umpire's ability to call the zone...

Again, independent of any discussions of technology, from what are you drawing your inference of bias from for the umpire?
 
2012-05-04 02:12:40 PM

markyp09: Cody Ross would disagree with that.


Meh, 4 of those were close enough that the strike calls aren't unreasonable. And if two of those were called prior to that one, then he's a damn fool for not swinging at the third one.
 
2012-05-04 02:14:11 PM

Slow To Return: IAmRight: A few balls called strikes isn't a big deal, even in the insignificance that is a baseball game.

Without going into the obvious difference a called ball or strike has on a 3-2 count, it's seems disingenous to imply that pitch counts aren't a huge part of the game. There's a noticeable difference between being up in the count 2-1 and being down in the count 1-2, or being up 3-1 vs 2-2.


Umpires talk about this, basically they want the players to make plays, and not settle the matter themselves. A 3-0 count, the strikezone will be billboard sized. 0-2, you're going to have to groove it to get a strikeout, or make the batter go fishing.
 
2012-05-04 02:14:42 PM

thomps: right, which is why it makes no difference how consistent a "ref" in WWE is. you're trying to shift this into a place that the analogy was never meant to cover.


My only analogy was that the WWE and the MLB are forms of entertainment.

There is no ref in the WWE since everybody is an actor.
 
2012-05-04 02:17:47 PM
Oh, and as for why this thread? Today's threads are: Baseball, baseball, golf, baseball, Olympics, baseball, field hockey, and soccer.

When there's a thread about something else at least semi-interesting, I'm happy to go to it.
 
2012-05-04 02:18:07 PM

MugzyBrown: thomps: right, which is why it makes no difference how consistent a "ref" in WWE is. you're trying to shift this into a place that the analogy was never meant to cover.

My only analogy was that the WWE and the MLB are forms of entertainment.

There is no ref in the WWE since everybody is an actor.


ok, i agree that both are things that people watch for entertainment and whose revenues are derived from such.
 
2012-05-04 02:19:48 PM

MugzyBrown: thomps: no, because one is live-action while the other is pre-recorded. i would say that going to a WWE event is "exactly like" going to a play, though.

Your definition of exactly is very inexact.

The MLB differs from the WWE in that the MLB is not pre-determined.

Thus I find the MLB to be entertaining and the WWE.

However, they are both entertainment events. If people didn't find the MLB entertaining, the MLB wouldn't exist.


OK, but the entertainment value of MLB is at least partially due to people wanting to see what happens when players compete against each other and try to outplay the other players. WWE doesn't have that (to the same degree, anyway). You can't see the problem with holding them to the same satdard becasue they're both forms of entertainment?

There are people that would be more entertained if the rules were consistently applied. That's fine. Personally, I think that an umpire called a large or small strike zone adds to the entertainment, but that's just me (and apparently a bunch of other people in here).

What I'm saying boils down to is this: I agree that umpires calling balls and strikes is fine the way it is, but your point about entertainment really, really, really, really, really sucks.So please stop it.
 
2012-05-04 02:20:42 PM

satanorsanta: As can be seen and has been discussed in other places, the biggest difference is the outside for lefties gets called for more strikes. The lefty/righty data is much more consistent between teams.


Stop using their own stat system against them. You'll ruin their whole argument.
 
2012-05-04 02:23:40 PM

Rex_Banner: but your point about entertainment really, really, really, really, really sucks.So please stop it.


Sorry if reality sucks, but that's reality.

It's all just entertainment.. that's why they get paid so much...who else get paid a lot.. oh yeah actors.
 
2012-05-04 02:25:21 PM

Rex_Banner: There are people that would be more entertained if the rules were consistently applied. That's fine. Personally, I think that an umpire called a large or small strike zone adds to the entertainment, but that's just me (and apparently a bunch of other people in here).


I'd rather say "I saw a no-hitter" than "I saw a two-hitter that was umpired with 100% efficiency."

And no, I wouldn't say "I saw a no-hitter with 100% umpiring accuracy" seems like more of an accomplishment than any other no-hitter.
 
2012-05-04 02:25:44 PM

MugzyBrown: Rex_Banner: but your point about entertainment really, really, really, really, really sucks.So please stop it.

Sorry if reality sucks, but that's reality.

It's all just entertainment.. that's why they get paid so much...who else get paid a lot.. oh yeah actors.


wtf does that even mean? are you advancing a point or just kind of tossing shiat up against the wall?
 
2012-05-04 02:25:58 PM

IAmRight: I never once said anything about a multi-camera system. You may be getting my posts somewhat conflated with other posts. If they can show the three-dimensional movement of the ball within the space, super. It doesn't change the fact that it's solving a problem that only exists in the minds of .01 percent of baseball fans.


Seeing as how badly you and WTFIndeed are outnumbered here, I'd re-think that rectal pluck.
 
2012-05-04 02:28:53 PM

Babwa Wawa: Seeing as how badly you and WTFIndeed are outnumbered here, I'd re-think that rectal pluck.


Yeah, if the Sports tab was a reflection of reality, then either hockey or the WWE would be the most popular sport in the nation and ESPN wouldn't exist.
 
2012-05-04 02:29:49 PM

IAmRight: Rex_Banner: There are people that would be more entertained if the rules were consistently applied. That's fine. Personally, I think that an umpire called a large or small strike zone adds to the entertainment, but that's just me (and apparently a bunch of other people in here).

I'd rather say "I saw a no-hitter" than "I saw a two-hitter that was umpired with 100% efficiency."

And no, I wouldn't say "I saw a no-hitter with 100% umpiring accuracy" seems like more of an accomplishment than any other no-hitter.


Yeah, I agree. That's why I said that " I think that an umpire called a large or small strike zone adds to the entertainment". But I can see an arguement for the other side and I understand where they are coming from
 
2012-05-04 02:30:17 PM
Seeing as how badly you and WTFIndeed are outnumbered here, I'd re-think that rectal pluck.

Considering Fark is a website for geeks and the only people who care about this crap are geeks, just the fact there are differing views on Fark should show you how little the fans care about 'getting it right'
 
2012-05-04 02:31:08 PM

MugzyBrown: Rex_Banner: but your point about entertainment really, really, really, really, really sucks.So please stop it.

Sorry if reality sucks, but that's reality.

It's all just entertainment.. that's why they get paid so much...who else get paid a lot.. oh yeah actors.


Yes, it is all entertainment, but do you understand what makes them entertaining? THAT's the key here
 
2012-05-04 02:36:06 PM
Yes, it is all entertainment, but do you understand what makes them entertaining? THAT's the key here

People like sports for the unknown aspect and the highs and lows throughout a good game.

Replacing umps with cameras does nothing to augment that. In fact, it'd make it less interesting.

Look at the crowd, what makes them go nuts? Probably in the top 5 would be a bad call. Fans stand up and yell when there's a call they don't like. That's part of the fun.

It's what gets people talking on the radio and tuning in to ESPN.
 
2012-05-04 02:36:26 PM

TheMatchHare: Again, independent of any discussions of technology, from what are you drawing your inference of bias from for the umpire?


You can't claim much of anything on the basis of one game, of course.

But ever since the technology has debuted, people have noticed how poor umpires are at calling a consistent zone. "The Compassionate Umpire" is one example, where they show the strike zone's area changes by 50 percent based on the count. People have also found that pitchers get more calls in their favor when pitching at home, to the tune of about 1 run per 8 games, or 20 runs per year just from an expanded strike zone. They've similarly shown that veteran pitchers get more favorable calls than newer pitchers-- almost half a run per game difference between over-35s and under-25s.

That's unfair by anyone's definition. There are people arguing that the system should remain unfair for whatever reason, but that's different from claiming that umpires are fair.
 
2012-05-04 02:38:28 PM

EnderWiggnz: Umpires talk about this, basically they want the players to make plays,


I think that's the point of those who want computer-assisted strike zones. They don't give a shiat what umpires "want," they give a shiat about what's right.
 
2012-05-04 02:39:54 PM
Is the strike zone the reason for all of Albert Pujols' no hitters?
 
2012-05-04 02:41:09 PM

chimp_ninja: That's unfair by anyone's definition.


Not really.
 
2012-05-04 02:41:42 PM

IAmRight: Rex_Banner: There are people that would be more entertained if the rules were consistently applied. That's fine. Personally, I think that an umpire called a large or small strike zone adds to the entertainment, but that's just me (and apparently a bunch of other people in here).

I'd rather say "I saw a no-hitter" than "I saw a two-hitter that was umpired with 100% efficiency."

And no, I wouldn't say "I saw a no-hitter with 100% umpiring accuracy" seems like more of an accomplishment than any other no-hitter.


On the flip-side, I'd rather see Armando Galarraga get the perfect game he deserved.
 
2012-05-04 02:43:57 PM

chimp_ninja: But ever since the technology has debuted, people have noticed how poor umpires are at calling a consistent zone.


Ever since forever, people have noticed umps making arguable calls. It's part of the charm of baseball.
 
2012-05-04 02:47:40 PM

IAmRight: chimp_ninja: That's unfair by anyone's definition.

Not really.


No, really. If an umpire is giving one pitcher a big strike zone and another pitcher a small strike zone, that's the definition of unfair. You could theoretically want the unfairness to continue, but otherwise you don't understand what the word "fair" means.
 
2012-05-04 02:49:34 PM

EnderWiggnz: Umpires talk about this, basically they want the players to make plays, and not settle the matter themselves. A 3-0 count, the strikezone will be billboard sized. 0-2, you're going to have to groove it to get a strikeout, or make the batter go fishing.


This is the exact opposite of letting the players settle the matter themselves.
 
2012-05-04 02:52:01 PM

chimp_ninja: No, really. If an umpire is giving one pitcher a big strike zone and another pitcher a small strike zone, that's the definition of unfair.


It depends if you limit "fair" to an inning-by-inning basis instead of a career-by-career basis. Ultimately, if the guy with the small strike zone is a solid pitcher, he'll be benefitting from the larger strike zone later in his career.

Basically, with this and with, say, college football, I treat it like a Monet - I enjoy it in the big picture and I don't need each little detail within each stroke to be perfect. Some people want everything to be photorealistic down to the pixel, and think that's the only way something can be accurate/fair.
 
2012-05-04 02:52:32 PM

chimp_ninja: Weaver got 11 of those outside-the-zone strikes, vs. 1 for the opposing pitcher. That's very odd.


Not really. Umpires will give leeway to pitchers that consistently hit their spots(whether or not they should isn't in this discussion because it happened, it's there). The only spots the Twins were hitting that day were the sweetspot of the bats. No Twins pitcher pitched more than 2+ innings and they went through six of them. And they only issued 1 walk. Twins pitchers were not being squeezed.
 
2012-05-04 02:55:53 PM

chimp_ninja: TheMatchHare: Again, independent of any discussions of technology, from what are you drawing your inference of bias from for the umpire?

You can't claim much of anything on the basis of one game, of course.

But ever since the technology has debuted, people have noticed how poor umpires are at calling a consistent zone. "The Compassionate Umpire" is one example, where they show the strike zone's area changes by 50 percent based on the count. People have also found that pitchers get more calls in their favor when pitching at home, to the tune of about 1 run per 8 games, or 20 runs per year just from an expanded strike zone. They've similarly shown that veteran pitchers get more favorable calls than newer pitchers-- almost half a run per game difference between over-35s and under-25s.

That's unfair by anyone's definition. There are people arguing that the system should remain unfair for whatever reason, but that's different from claiming that umpires are fair.


I can accept that. At first I thought you were agreeing with TFA about the strong bias in that one game...which I wasn't seeing definitively.
 
2012-05-04 02:56:14 PM

MugzyBrown: People like sports for the unknown aspect and the highs and lows throughout a good game.


Yes, that's part of it. They also like the competition - seeing who can best the other guy. Seeing who can do more within the format of the game than anyone else ever has. Seeing what happens when Player A tries to outperform Player B, and seeing what each guy does to win.

MugzyBrown: Replacing umps with cameras does nothing to augment that. In fact, it'd make it less interesting.


I agree, but the reason it makes it more interesting is not because of this:

MugzyBrown: Look at the crowd, what makes them go nuts? Probably in the top 5 would be a bad call. Fans stand up and yell when there's a call they don't like.


The strike zone makes the game more interesting because it causes batters and pitchers to react to a set of circumstances. Good players will work to the umpire's zone. Crappy ones won't make the right adjustments. That's part of the competition thing. The fans don't go nuts because they are entertained by bad calls. They go nuts because the result of the competition was altered by something beyond the competitors. And again, I'm OK with that. I can see why others would want the competition to solely determine the outcome, though.

Of course, this all differs completely from WWE. People don't care about the competition as much with wrestling (or sports entertainment, I guess). They are watching to see a story told and they are entertained by that.
 
2012-05-04 02:58:08 PM

IAmRight: Rex_Banner: There are people that would be more entertained if the rules were consistently applied. That's fine. Personally, I think that an umpire called a large or small strike zone adds to the entertainment, but that's just me (and apparently a bunch of other people in here).

I'd rather say "I saw a no-hitter" than "I saw a two-hitter that was umpired with 100% efficiency."


And no, I wouldn't say "I saw a no-hitter with 100% umpiring accuracy" seems like more of an accomplishment than any other no-hitter.


of course you would, just like you'd rather say "My girlfriend only sucks my dick" than "My girlfriend sucks my dick as well as the postman's and the plumber's." What you would rather and what is true are not connected in that way.

Acting as if correctible umpire mistakes shouldn't matter is a bizarre stance when thinking about competitive sports.
 
2012-05-04 02:59:00 PM

Rex_Banner: The strike zone makes the game more interesting because it causes batters and pitchers to react to a set of circumstances. Good players will work to the umpire's zone. Crappy ones won't make the right adjustments. That's part of the competition thing.


This is like saying, "it's ok that the Saints drilled Brett Favre all game because the refs weren't calling it. Too bad for the crappy Vikings that they didn't take advantage and drill Drew Brees."

Which, I suppose, kinda makes sense.
 
Displayed 50 of 218 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report