NL Wild Card - Page 12

Storgers · 10-02-2007, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raderick

There would have been two outs with the game tied. The game could still be going right now.

Of course if the umps got the first call right the game would have been over long ago, with the same result.

Prodigal Son · 10-02-2007, 02:05 AM

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info...s/runner_7.jsp

Quote:

NOTE: The catcher, without the ball in his possession, has no right to block the pathway of the runner attempting to score. The base line belongs to the runner and the catcher should be there only when he is fielding a ball or when he already has the ball in his hand.

(emphasis added)

Note that in this case, judging from the context of the preceding paragraphs, "fielding the ball" seems to only be fielding the batted ball. Receiving a throw from a teammate does not qualify as "fielding" the ball.

Hence, it is a moot point. The base path was Holliday's, and the catcher blocked it without possession of the ball. Holliday gets home plate whether he touched it or not.

canadiancreed · 10-02-2007, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kenyan_cheena

This capitulation by the Mets must rank as one of the biggest collapses in Major League history. Unbelieveable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PotatoPeeler

I think the '95 Angels still have them beat.

Or the '64 Angels
Or the '69 Cubs
Or the '87 Jays

The Professor · 10-02-2007, 02:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raderick

There would have been two outs with the game tied. The game could still be going right now.

Thankfully, however, it is not. And you have Troy Percival to blame.

Although, throwing pitches all the way from St. Louis is bound to be difficult. That he got them there at all must mean he is some sort of minor deity. And throwing uphill, too.

Prodigal Son · 10-02-2007, 02:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Professor

Thankfully, however, it is not. And you have Troy Percival to blame.

Although, throwing pitches all the way from St. Louis is bound to be difficult. That he got them there at all must mean he is some sort of minor deity. And throwing uphill, too.

I hate you.

Hoffman, Percival, Robb Nen, Ed Norton, they're all the same person anyway.

spark240 · 10-02-2007, 03:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Prodigal Son

Hence, it is a moot point. The base path was Holliday's, and the catcher blocked it without possession of the ball. Holliday gets home plate whether he touched it or not.

Very true. We can even say this was the reason for the call being made, and perhaps it was.

However, we all know that umpires have not exactly been rigorously enforcing this rule in MLB games lately. Even when a book rule has clearly been violated, if the violation is essentially consistent with how the game has been played recently, a critical moment in a big game is not the time to start being conscientious about the enforcement.

That said, I'm in favor of an umpire directive to start enforcing this rule again.

PotatoPeeler · 10-02-2007, 04:31 AM

A friend and I were having an email conversation about the game tonight. Here's what he had to say about Trevor Hoffman. I tend to agree with him.

Quote:

Oh, by the way an' excuuuusethafackouttame, but I certainly hope the fact that Trevor Hoffman fails to nail down YET ANOTHER big game is lost on absolutely no one. And not only is this YET ANOTHER big one in his career, ****, it's YET ANOTHER big one in the span of three frickin' days.

Has there ever been a closer who has closed out so many absolutely meaningless games and then just gone absolutely AWOL when it really counts? I think not.

The comparisons to Mariano Rivera should have been dead and buried basically a decade ago. Any notions that he's a fraction of the closer Rivera has been absolutely went BOOM! tonight. Even the most die-hard Hoffman promoters can't keep up that charade any more. I like Hoffman basically, because he seems like a decent guy, but let's be honest: he'll basically only shut you down when it doesn't matter.

Raderick · 10-02-2007, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PotatoPeeler

A friend and I were having an email conversation about the game tonight. Here's what he had to say about Trevor Hoffman. I tend to agree with him.

Hoffy's lack of big-time saves is being ridiculed on the Padres forum at the Union Tribune boards.

ctorg · 10-02-2007, 08:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spark240

When you come that close, don't you kind of wish they'd gone all the way and set the record?

I actually know a Tigers fan who said he was sort of disappointed when the '03 team didn't quite set the "modern" record for losses in a season. The Tigers players, instead of leaving the field humbly and quietly, apparently celebrated that last win (which gave made them 43-119 for the year) as if they had accomplished something. The media coverage was all about how the Tigers had "avoided" the ignominy of matching the '62 Mets. But the guy I know said (words to the effect of) look, the season's a total disgrace either way. But a few years down the road, having that record would have been part of the story of the team. Now it'll just be another bad season.

Come to think of it, since the Mets do still hold that record, maybe they're okay with not setting another one this year.

I don't know... I can understand that in the Tigers' case. I mean, there was really no hope of anything else that season, so that was at least something memorable to go for. In the case of the Mets this year, it all came apart so quickly that there was no time for expectations to turn.

ctorg · 10-02-2007, 08:40 AM

So the Rockies are the wild card. And the Padres, whom most people assumed would be in the playoffs, are going home. What a wild finish in the NL this year! Two of the four teams clinched on the last game (one needing an extra game), and everyone clinched in the last few days.

pat · 10-02-2007, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by canadiancreed

Or the '64 Angels
Or the '69 Cubs
Or the '87 Jays

SI's biggest collapses.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ses/index.html

jaxmagicman · 10-02-2007, 09:07 AM

Wow, that is a good article with a lot of math to back it up.

ctorg · 10-02-2007, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pat

SI's biggest collapses.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ses/index.html

Interesting. That one has the Angels' 1995 collapse as the worst mathematical collapse of all time. I wasn't following baseball much at that point, but I can see how having such a huge lead in both the divisional and wild card races would make the odds so difficult. 8332-1 odds. Wow.

Gastric ReFlux · 10-02-2007, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctorg

So the Rockies are the wild card. And the Padres, whom most people assumed would be in the playoffs, are going home. What a wild finish in the NL this year! Two of the four teams clinched on the last game (one needing an extra game), and everyone clinched in the last few days.

I don't think anyone would have believed someone on September 12th if that person said that neither the Mets or the Padres would be in the postseason.

Also because of it we have 4 completely different NL playoff teams this year.

PotatoPeeler · 10-02-2007, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctorg

Interesting. That one has the Angels' 1995 collapse as the worst mathematical collapse of all time. I wasn't following baseball much at that point, but I can see how having such a huge lead in both the divisional and wild card races would make the odds so difficult. 8332-1 odds. Wow.

So I was right after all when I said...

Quote:

Originally Posted by PotatoPeeler

I think the '95 Angels still have them beat.

Gastric ReFlux · 10-02-2007, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PotatoPeeler

Thanks for the correction. And Actually, the Phillies had a 6.5 game lead over the Reds and Cardinals at the close of play on the 20th of September, 1964. At that point, there were just 12 games left in the season. So as bad as the Muts collapse was, it doesn't even come close to matching the '64 Phillies, IMO.

But maybe not so right with this assessment.

ctorg · 10-02-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PotatoPeeler

So I was right after all when I said...

Yeah, looks like it, from a mathematical standpoint, simply because the Angels had such a large lead in two different races. The odds of not hanging onto either one were miniscule.

However, their collapse was not at all sudden. It was a long, drawn-out one. They peaked in August. From that standpoint, the 1964 Phillies or the 2007 Mets was probably worse for the fans who were on the verge of celebrating playoff contention.

PotatoPeeler · 10-02-2007, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pat

SI's biggest collapses.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/200...ses/index.html

I'm reading this right now and it's good. But what drives me nuts about it is that they couldn't even wait for the Rockies/Padres game to be played before it was published. That's lame, IMO.

spark240 · 10-02-2007, 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ctorg

Interesting. That one has the Angels' 1995 collapse as the worst mathematical collapse of all time. I wasn't following baseball much at that point, but I can see how having such a huge lead in both the divisional and wild card races would make the odds so difficult. 8332-1 odds. Wow.

He's throwing two different numbers around, the "odds against" figure and the percentage-to-reach-playoffs figure. The "rankings" are completely different by each measure, and I'm less than convinced by either methodology.

The way he did it, he's apparently counting each game the '95 Angels lost (after their peak point) against them twice: as a slip in the relative divisional standings and with respect to wild card, multiplying the "odds."

Yet when we looks at the Mets, he mentions the wild card cushion with respect to the percentage (thus making the Mets percentage second-worst of all time, after the '51 Dodgers), yet he doesn't seem to be factoring the odds of, for example, the part the Rockies' surge had in removing the cushion.

Then, having deployed two totally different mathematics to evidently impressive effect, he basically tosses them both and ends up ranking the chokes by subjective aggravating and mitigating circumstances. Like, the 2004 Yankees failing in the ALCS is "mitigated" because "the World Series itself was a snoozer"!

Okay, whatever.

mauboy · 10-02-2007, 10:33 AM

IMO, Holliday was safe and I thought about it as soon as the play happened. Barrett blocked the runner when he's not allowed.

Great game.

10-02-2007, 08:40 AM	#230
ctorg Global Moderator Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Queens, NY Posts: 9,848	So the Rockies are the wild card. And the Padres, whom most people assumed would be in the playoffs, are going home. What a wild finish in the NL this year! Two of the four teams clinched on the last game (one needing an extra game), and everyone clinched in the last few days. __________________ My music "When the trees blow back and forth, that's what makes the wind." - Steven Wright Fjord emena pancreas thorax fornicate marmalade morpheme proteolysis smaxa cabana offal srue vitriol grope hallelujah lentils

10-02-2007, 09:07 AM	#232
jaxmagicman Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Retired defloration-maker living in Myrtle Beach, SC Posts: 7,801	Wow, that is a good article with a lot of math to back it up. __________________ See ID Major League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of MLB Advanced Media, L.P. Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with the permission of Minor League Baseball. All rights reserved.

10-02-2007, 10:33 AM	#240
mauboy Hall Of Famer Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 2,906	IMO, Holliday was safe and I thought about it as soon as the play happened. Barrett blocked the runner when he's not allowed. Great game.