PDA

View Full Version : More pearls from Nate...


Nate_in_Kansas
10-13-2005, 05:09 PM
Look at it this way: If the tables had been turned, don't y'all think WE'D be bitchin' about the call? OF COURSE WE WOULD BE! So let's not say all this crap about "we know the ball hit the dirt" and "it's on Paul because he should have tagged A.J." If we would just take off our "White Sox fans at the expense of reason" caps for a second, we would no doubt recognize that everyone involved in the play except A.J. (and maybe even him, judging by his first step back to the dugout)--catcher, pitcher, and especially the umpire--was certain the third out had been recorded.

Consider this: Josh Paul is not STUPID. If he would have had any doubt, OF COURSE he would have reached out from his crouch and simply tagged A.J.

Also consider: The umpire VERY OBVIOUSLY made the out call...Obviously, that is, unless one is blind and/or completely delusional (which is exactly how the ump in question sounded after the game!).

Finally consider: It was ONLY when A.J. forced the issue that ANYONE seemed to express any doubt about the third out. A.J. had every right to do so, and I'm very happy he did. But to say that the ump DIDN'T totally screw the Angels in that instance is just plain ridiculous. Yes, if the Angels would have had their wits about them they still could have recovered. So they should not pin their entire loss on the ump. But you HAVE to admit that it MADE A DIFFERENCE.

And let's look at ourselves in the mirror here...We are OURSELVES notorious for over-analyzing umping calls which go against us (remember Crede's moment in Oakland?). If you don't think here that we'd be putting up a similar stink, were we on the Angel's side of the call, than you are not being honest with yourselves at all. So, for the LOVE OF SOX, let's BE honest: The Sox got the really good side of that call last night, and took advantage. We LOVE THAT! But it's bound to come back on us, and hopefully we won't get so bent out of shape when our turn comes...Hopefully we'll be able to 'play through it' better than we have in the past and than the Angels did last night.

Nate in Kansas

PaleHoseGeorge
10-13-2005, 05:13 PM
I don't know whether Josh Paul is "stupid" but he is definitely a busher and I can point to several boneheaded plays he made with the White Sox to prove my point.

Josh Paul ****ing up that play last night was perfectly in character for a busher like him. A third-string catcher playing the ninth inning in a 1-1 playoff game? Mike Scioscia should have his head examined.

You should, too.

:cool:

maurice
10-13-2005, 05:14 PM
If the tables had been turned, don't y'all think WE'D be bitchin' about the call? OF COURSE WE WOULD BE! . . .
everyone involved in the play except A.J. (and maybe even him, judging by his first step back to the dugout)--catcher, pitcher, and especially the umpire--was certain the third out had been recorded. . . .
Josh Paul is not STUPID. . . .
The umpire VERY OBVIOUSLY made the out call. . . .
It was ONLY when A.J. forced the issue that ANYONE seemed to express any doubt about the third out. . . .
to say that the ump DIDN'T totally screw the Angels in that instance is just plain ridiculous. . . .

Um, did you read the thread before you posted, because almost everything you said has already been proven to be total BS?

FielderJones
10-13-2005, 05:16 PM
Consider this: Josh Paul is not STUPID. If he would have had any doubt, OF COURSE he would have reached out from his crouch and simply tagged A.J.

Also consider: The umpire VERY OBVIOUSLY made the out call...Obviously, that is, unless one is blind and/or completely delusional (which is exactly how the ump in question sounded after the game!).

Finally consider: It was ONLY when A.J. forced the issue that ANYONE seemed to express any doubt about the third out. A.J. had every right to do so, and I'm very happy he did. But to say that the ump DIDN'T totally screw the Angels in that instance is just plain ridiculous. Yes, if the Angels would have had their wits about them they still could have recovered. So they should not pin their entire loss on the ump. But you HAVE to admit that it MADE A DIFFERENCE.

Consider this: Josh Paul does not get to call anyone out. He can tag someone out or throw someone out, but he can't call anyone out.

Also consider: The umpire DID NOT make the out call. He made the strike three call. The ball was still in play. You are delusional.

Finally consider: The umpire did not award Ozuna second base. The umpire did not award Crede a double. Those were both earned by the Sox players, on mistakes by the Angels players, with two outs. The difference was execution by the Sox, and lack of execution by the Angels.

FarWestChicago
10-13-2005, 06:12 PM
Look at it this way: If the tables had been turned, don't y'all think WE'D be bitchin' about the call? OF COURSE WE WOULD BE! So let's not say all this crap about "we know the ball hit the dirt" and "it's on Paul because he should have tagged A.J." If we would just take off our "White Sox fans at the expense of reason" caps for a second, we would no doubt recognize that everyone involved in the play except A.J. (and maybe even him, judging by his first step back to the dugout)--catcher, pitcher, and especially the umpire--was certain the third out had been recorded.

Consider this: Josh Paul is not STUPID. If he would have had any doubt, OF COURSE he would have reached out from his crouch and simply tagged A.J.

Also consider: The umpire VERY OBVIOUSLY made the out call...Obviously, that is, unless one is blind and/or completely delusional (which is exactly how the ump in question sounded after the game!).

Finally consider: It was ONLY when A.J. forced the issue that ANYONE seemed to express any doubt about the third out. A.J. had every right to do so, and I'm very happy he did. But to say that the ump DIDN'T totally screw the Angels in that instance is just plain ridiculous. Yes, if the Angels would have had their wits about them they still could have recovered. So they should not pin their entire loss on the ump. But you HAVE to admit that it MADE A DIFFERENCE.

And let's look at ourselves in the mirror here...We are OURSELVES notorious for over-analyzing umping calls which go against us (remember Crede's moment in Oakland?). If you don't think here that we'd be putting up a similar stink, were we on the Angel's side of the call, than you are not being honest with yourselves at all. So, for the LOVE OF SOX, let's BE honest: The Sox got the really good side of that call last night, and took advantage. We LOVE THAT! But it's bound to come back on us, and hopefully we won't get so bent out of shape when our turn comes...Hopefully we'll be able to 'play through it' better than we have in the past and than the Angels did last night.

Nate in KansasCongratulations for having the post with the most inaccuracies in this lengthy thread. It's astonishing somebody could be so perfectly wrong. Wow. :o:

Nate_in_Kansas
10-13-2005, 06:34 PM
Congratulations for having the post with the most inaccuracies in this lengthy thread. It's astonishing somebody could be so perfectly wrong. Wow. :o:

I guess innaccuracies are in the eye of the beholder...There has been a lot of good discussion on this thread, but nothing that says to me the ball definitively hit the ground OR that the ump's call was not, in fact, an out call. I'm sorry, but even evidence, in my opinion, is open to interpretation, and I've already stated mine...I'm sorry if, in your opinion, my interpretation of the evidence is innacurate. There are apparently a lot of people who agree with both of us, so ultimately the jury is still out.

No love lost, though...Go SOX!
Nate

pearso66
10-13-2005, 07:00 PM
I guess innaccuracies are in the eye of the beholder...There has been a lot of good discussion on this thread, but nothing that says to me the ball definitively hit the ground OR that the ump's call was not, in fact, an out call. I'm sorry, but even evidence, in my opinion, is open to interpretation, and I've already stated mine...I'm sorry if, in your opinion, my interpretation of the evidence is innacurate. There are apparently a lot of people who agree with both of us, so ultimately the jury is still out.

No love lost, though...Go SOX!
Nate

The ball may not have hit the ground, but it was a close enough call that Paul should have tagged him, and it was close enough that the Ump thought it hit the ground. His strike 3 call is the same as his strike 2 call and his strike 1 call, which just happens to look like an out call. If he had indeed said out, another ump would have stepped in and mentioned that, they didnt, in fact they all said, he called strike 3, not out. That is all I need to know. It was a close call, could have been avoided if Paul wasnt an idiot.

RKMeibalane
10-13-2005, 07:05 PM
Look at it this way: If the tables had been turned, don't y'all think WE'D be bitchin' about the call? OF COURSE WE WOULD BE! So let's not say all this crap about "we know the ball hit the dirt" and "it's on Paul because he should have tagged A.J." If we would just take off our "White Sox fans at the expense of reason" caps for a second, we would no doubt recognize that everyone involved in the play except A.J. (and maybe even him, judging by his first step back to the dugout)--catcher, pitcher, and especially the umpire--was certain the third out had been recorded.

Consider this: Josh Paul is not STUPID. If he would have had any doubt, OF COURSE he would have reached out from his crouch and simply tagged A.J.

Also consider: The umpire VERY OBVIOUSLY made the out call...Obviously, that is, unless one is blind and/or completely delusional (which is exactly how the ump in question sounded after the game!).

Finally consider: It was ONLY when A.J. forced the issue that ANYONE seemed to express any doubt about the third out. A.J. had every right to do so, and I'm very happy he did. But to say that the ump DIDN'T totally screw the Angels in that instance is just plain ridiculous. Yes, if the Angels would have had their wits about them they still could have recovered. So they should not pin their entire loss on the ump. But you HAVE to admit that it MADE A DIFFERENCE.

And let's look at ourselves in the mirror here...We are OURSELVES notorious for over-analyzing umping calls which go against us (remember Crede's moment in Oakland?). If you don't think here that we'd be putting up a similar stink, were we on the Angel's side of the call, than you are not being honest with yourselves at all. So, for the LOVE OF SOX, let's BE honest: The Sox got the really good side of that call last night, and took advantage. We LOVE THAT! But it's bound to come back on us, and hopefully we won't get so bent out of shape when our turn comes...Hopefully we'll be able to 'play through it' better than we have in the past and than the Angels did last night.

Nate in Kansas

:prozac

patbooyah
10-13-2005, 07:27 PM
I guess innaccuracies are in the eye of the beholder...


well, you are very obviously the beholder. :cool:

i have to give you credit, at least you are articulate and don't resort to name calling. i won't fault you for believing what you believe, even if i disagree.

Iwritecode
10-14-2005, 12:10 AM
but nothing that says to me the ball definitively hit the ground OR that the ump's call was not, in fact, an out call.


So the umpire himself saying that he never called AJ out isn't proof enough for you?

:kukoo:

Nate_in_Kansas
10-14-2005, 12:20 AM
So the umpire himself saying that he never called AJ out isn't proof enough for you?

:kukoo:

Perhaps he was covering himself...Perhaps he knew he'd screwed up and was sticking to the story that made him least liable. Makes sense to me, but I'm not God so I guess I couldn't tell you for sure if he was telling the truth or not. He sounded generally incomprehensible to me, which I guess only raises my suspicions.

I don't even care anymore, though...all opinions have been beaten to death, time to move on.

Nate_in_Kansas
10-14-2005, 12:22 AM
well, you are very obviously the beholder. :cool:

i have to give you credit, at least you are articulate and don't resort to name calling. i won't fault you for believing what you believe, even if i disagree.

Thank you, BTW, for those kind words...they are much appreciated.

DrCrawdad
10-14-2005, 06:48 AM
Paul thought Eddings had called Pierzynski out, but the umpire said he simply signaled the third strike.

Asked if he heard an "out'' call, Paul said, "No."

Just for the record.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-14-2005, 08:11 AM
Paul thought Eddings had called Pierzynski out, but the umpire said he simply signaled the third strike.

Asked if he heard an "out'' call, Paul said, "No." Just for the record.

You're not suggesting Nate doesn't have his facts straight, are you?
:wink:

The umpire says he never said, "out" and Josh Paul admits he never heard "out" but claims it's "customary" (JOSH'S word for it, not mine) that the umpire give a no catch indication.

Even Josh's old man feigned ignorance on this point. So Nate's in good company.

:roflmao:

Hangar18
10-14-2005, 08:14 AM
I don't know whether Josh Paul is "stupid" but he is definitely a busher and I can point to several boneheaded plays he made with the White Sox to prove my point.

Josh Paul ****ing up that play last night was perfectly in character for a busher like him. A third-string catcher playing the ninth inning in a 1-1 playoff game? Mike Scioscia should have his head examined.

You should, too.

:cool:

Josh Paul grew up a huge white sox fan .......... So im not going to call him any derogatory names .........

PaleHoseGeorge
10-14-2005, 08:17 AM
Josh Paul grew up a huge white sox fan .......... So im not going to call him any derogatory names .........

Don't make me laugh, Hangar. If Jermaine Dye grew up a Sox fan, you would still have tears on your pillow for Magglio breaking up with you.

:cool:

Hangar18
10-14-2005, 08:18 AM
Don't make me laugh, Hangar. If Jermaine Dye grew up a Sox fan, you would still have tears on your pillow for Magglio breaking up with you.

:cool:


I will admit, I have a soft spot for SOX fans. If Jermaine grown up a SOX fan, Im sure I wouldnt be as hard on him as I am :smile:

Nate_in_Kansas
10-14-2005, 04:14 PM
You're not suggesting Nate doesn't have his facts straight, are you?
:wink:

The umpire says he never said, "out" and Josh Paul admits he never heard "out" but claims it's "customary" (JOSH'S word for it, not mine) that the umpire give a no catch indication.

Even Josh's old man feigned ignorance on this point. So Nate's in good company.

:roflmao:

Really, there are no clear facts in all of this, just, again, interpretations of the events. Here's some more for us all to chew on (and this, in my opinion, carries as much credibility as any other 'facts' presented on this board):

from http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/011872.php

Update: Eddings just had a news conference. He says he never verbally called the batter out. The supervisor said a batter is not called out if he starts toward the dugout. He's not out until he reaches the dugout steps.

According to one of the questions, Paul says umpires usually say, "No catch!" when the ball hits the ground. Eddings didn't do that. From that, I take it that Eddings didn't say, "out," either.

The umps are also claiming that from the replays they saw, the ball changed direction. As Harold Reynolds pointed out, it can change direction and still be in the glove.

Update: Good work by Drew in the comments. He writes:


Eddings contradicts himself..... on the batter before AJ, Aaron Rowand, when the ball got loose after he swung at strike 3, Eddings points to the ball, and ONLY RINGS HIM UP AFTER PAUL TAGS HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ringing him up IS NOT his normal strike 3 mechanics, as proved by the very batter before.





I just watched it on Tivo. Rowand swings and misses. Eddings right arm goes out straight. Paul tags Rowand, and Eddings pumps his fist!

FarWestChicago
10-14-2005, 04:25 PM
Really, there are no clear facts in all of this, just, again, interpretations of the events.No, there are plenty of clear facts (for example, your beloved Josh Paul not being able to see Eddings and also rolling the ball to the mound before any gesture he couldn't even see was made :rolleyes:). You just refuse to admit it. In the meantime, I would suggest you take your rally monkey and dry your tears with it. :yup:

Iwritecode
10-14-2005, 04:27 PM
I just watched it on Tivo. Rowand swings and misses. Eddings right arm goes out straight. Paul tags Rowand, and Eddings pumps his fist and says the word OUT!

Fixed that for ya.

When AJ swung at strike three his pumps his fist and more than likely said "strike 3" and not "out".

Ol' No. 2
10-14-2005, 04:38 PM
Really, there are no clear facts in all of this, just, again, interpretations of the events. Here's some more for us all to chew on (and this, in my opinion, carries as much credibility as any other 'facts' presented on this board):

from http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/011872.php

Update: Eddings just had a news conference. He says he never verbally called the batter out. The supervisor said a batter is not called out if he starts toward the dugout. He's not out until he reaches the dugout steps.

According to one of the questions, Paul says umpires usually say, "No catch!" when the ball hits the ground. Eddings didn't do that. From that, I take it that Eddings didn't say, "out," either.

The umps are also claiming that from the replays they saw, the ball changed direction. As Harold Reynolds pointed out, it can change direction and still be in the glove.

Update: Good work by Drew in the comments. He writes:Eddings contradicts himself..... on the batter before AJ, Aaron Rowand, when the ball got loose after he swung at strike 3, Eddings points to the ball, and ONLY RINGS HIM UP AFTER PAUL TAGS HIM!!!!!!!!!!!!! Ringing him up IS NOT his normal strike 3 mechanics, as proved by the very batter before.



I just watched it on Tivo. Rowand swings and misses. Eddings right arm goes out straight. Paul tags Rowand, and Eddings pumps his fist!What is so difficult to comprehend?:?: The fist pump means "strike 3", which it was. But in this case, that doesn't mean "you're out".

But it's all irrelevant, anyway. Eddings could have been doing backflips and it wouldn't have made any difference because Paul couldn't see him and he rolled the ball back to the mound beforehand anyway.

:DJ It's not rocket surgery.

SoxEd
10-14-2005, 05:03 PM
Enough of this already!


I just watched it on Tivo. Rowand swings and misses. Eddings right arm goes out straight. Paul tags Rowand, and Eddings pumps his fist!

I would respectfully like to direct your attention to the part of your post which I have made bold in the quote box above.

That done, I would now like to ask you what you think was the difference between the end of the Rowand at-bat and the end of the AJ at-bat?

I would also like to direct you to the replay of El Duque striking out Damon at the end of the 6th inning in Game 3 of this year's ALDS in Boston.

What did AJ do to Damon on that play, that Josh Paul failed to do to AJ?

Just to reiterate it for anyone hard-of-thinking out there, the bottom line with all of this controversy is that if Josh Paul had tagged AJ, there would be no possible doubt that the inning was over.

Josh Paul did NOT tag AJ.

The Home Plate Umpire did not fail to throw out Ozuna as he tried to steal second.

The Home Plate Umpire did not serve up an easy pitch to Crede and then watch it sail in to the outfield to enable the winning run to score.

If anyone still disagrees after reading the above, please explain to me again how an Umpire who was unsighted can be blamed for the Angels' catcher (who could not see what the Umpire did or didn't signal, and who furthermore admitted that he did not hear the Umpire call the batter 'Out!' verbally) having a brain-fart.

PaleHoseGeorge
10-14-2005, 05:11 PM
Nate... Nate... Nate...

So naive... so naive...

WSI is not bean bag, son.

:cool:

TomBradley72
10-14-2005, 05:11 PM
I guess innaccuracies are in the eye of the beholder...There has been a lot of good discussion on this thread, but nothing that says to me the ball definitively hit the ground OR that the ump's call was not, in fact, an out call. I'm sorry, but even evidence, in my opinion, is open to interpretation, and I've already stated mine...I'm sorry if, in your opinion, my interpretation of the evidence is innacurate. There are apparently a lot of people who agree with both of us, so ultimately the jury is still out.

No love lost, though...Go SOX!
Nate

That's the point Nate....the replays are "inconclusive"...which means everyone concerned should have played through the play all the way to the finish. AJ was the only one to do this....and the WSox capitalized.

TomBradley72
10-14-2005, 05:13 PM
Nate... Nate... Nate...

So naive... so naive...

WSI is not bean bag, son.

:cool:

Hilarious. :D:

goodsy72
10-14-2005, 06:05 PM
:threadblows: :dumbass:
:bart