13FoxDad:

BigBrew/PackFan:

When the Brewers hit they can't pitch--when they pitch they can't hit--today was nothing but frustration--Cubs tried to give the game away and Brewers apparently didn't want it so the umpire said enough and gave it to the Cubs!

Again the Brewers cannot advance the runners and can't score runs

 

I have just one question, and I apologize if it has been covered, but why didn't Macha pinch run for Soupan in the 7th Inning, that ends the game after Nine w/the Brewers weinning 2-1.

If he didn't pinch-hit for him, he certainly wasn't going to pinch-run for him.

He was pitching great, Macha wanted to let him keep going and not overtax the pen and the game was tied. If the Brewers were down by a run, I guarantee he'd have pinch-hit for him in the first place.

If you let the pitcher hit to lead off an inning, you sure aren't going to run for him and take him out. Otherwise, maybe you'd have let a guy hit capable of popping a double or homer (though that's not a likely scenario from the Brewers bench) instead of Suppan, who anytime he gets a hit (no offense), it's mostly good luck.

Once you let the pitcher hit, you're absolutely committed to at least letting him start the next inning. And pinch-running for him would've eliminated that possibility.

stix:

13FoxDad:

BigBrew/PackFan:

When the Brewers hit they can't pitch--when they pitch they can't hit--today was nothing but frustration--Cubs tried to give the game away and Brewers apparently didn't want it so the umpire said enough and gave it to the Cubs!

Again the Brewers cannot advance the runners and can't score runs

 

I have just one question, and I apologize if it has been covered, but why didn't Macha pinch run for Soupan in the 7th Inning, that ends the game after Nine w/the Brewers weinning 2-1.

If he didn't pinch-hit for him, he certainly wasn't going to pinch-run for him.

He was pitching great, Macha wanted to let him keep going and not overtax the pen and the game was tied. If the Brewers were down by a run, I guarantee he'd have pinch-hit for him in the first place.

If you let the pitcher hit to lead off an inning, you sure aren't going to run for him and take him out. Otherwise, maybe you'd have let a guy hit capable of popping a double or homer (though that's not a likely scenario from the Brewers bench) instead of Suppan, who anytime he gets a hit (no offense), it's mostly good luck.

Once you let the pitcher hit, you're absolutely committed to at least letting him start the next inning. And pinch-running for him would've eliminated that possibility.

That's great except for one thing. It cost him the game!

13FoxDad:

stix:

13FoxDad:

BigBrew/PackFan:

When the Brewers hit they can't pitch--when they pitch they can't hit--today was nothing but frustration--Cubs tried to give the game away and Brewers apparently didn't want it so the umpire said enough and gave it to the Cubs!

Again the Brewers cannot advance the runners and can't score runs

 

I have just one question, and I apologize if it has been covered, but why didn't Macha pinch run for Soupan in the 7th Inning, that ends the game after Nine w/the Brewers weinning 2-1.

If he didn't pinch-hit for him, he certainly wasn't going to pinch-run for him.

He was pitching great, Macha wanted to let him keep going and not overtax the pen and the game was tied. If the Brewers were down by a run, I guarantee he'd have pinch-hit for him in the first place.

If you let the pitcher hit to lead off an inning, you sure aren't going to run for him and take him out. Otherwise, maybe you'd have let a guy hit capable of popping a double or homer (though that's not a likely scenario from the Brewers bench) instead of Suppan, who anytime he gets a hit (no offense), it's mostly good luck.

Once you let the pitcher hit, you're absolutely committed to at least letting him start the next inning. And pinch-running for him would've eliminated that possibility.

That's great except for one thing. It cost him the game!

You have no way of knowing that. If he removes Suppan from the game then, who knows what the Cubs would have done against whoever would have been pitching in the last half of the inning.

geddymd72:

uwmfan:

I thought it was an awful call on the last pitch. The batter should be penalized for not swinging at such a close pitch in that situation. It was a clear case of playing to the home crowd. Just awful.  The umpire basically bailed out the batter.

 

Hard to call a strike there. There was perhaps one other pitch (to Theriot early) in the game that has been called a strike high and inside on that line there all game long. If its called a strike, the umpire bails out the pitcher.

 

I think you're  missing the point. It was a very close pitch. In that situation the batter better swing. It MAY have been an inch high but there is no way the batter should have taken. So the ump bailed out the batter. If he'd have called a strike, he  would not have been bailing out the pitcher since the pitch was very close, borderline strike.

shipitdear:

radio silence:

and the offense was shut down by the Cubs.

No no my friend.  The offense had set the table numerous times for themselves.  THE OFFENSE WAS SHUT DOWN BY THE BREWERS A

ND THE OFFENSE LOST THE GAME. 

Yes, but we shut  down their offense. We deserved to have another shot. That game is all on the ump's very cowardly act.

Steves Stoners:

UWWhitewaterGrad:

Due to the angle of the camera, that pitch looks more inside than it really is.

 

Actually I'm pretty sure since the camera is over his right shoulder.  The pitch doesn't look as inside as it really is.  You have it backwards.

That was exactly my point but I was referring to the height of the pitch.  You said because the camera was over his right shoulder the pitch appears more to the left.  On the same theory, I questioned because the camera was above does the ball appear lower in the picture than it actually was.  I think we are discussing the same physics - and on the 3rd or 4th of July when we should just be drinking beer and bitching.

So why the red hats?

uwmfan:

shipitdear:

radio silence:

and the offense was shut down by the Cubs.

No no my friend.  The offense had set the table numerous times for themselves.  THE OFFENSE WAS SHUT DOWN BY THE BREWERS A

ND THE OFFENSE LOST THE GAME. 

 

Yes, but we shut  down their offense. We deserved to have another shot. That game is all on the ump's very cowardly act.

geddymd72:

uwmfan:

shipitdear:

radio silence:

and the offense was shut down by the Cubs.

No no my friend.  The offense had set the table numerous times for themselves.  THE OFFENSE WAS SHUT DOWN BY THE BREWERS A

ND THE OFFENSE LOST THE GAME. 

 

Yes, but we shut  down their offense. We deserved to have another shot. That game is all on the ump's very cowardly act.

Yeah, cowardly act. He didn't go after anyone. He simply called a ball the way he saw it.

 

UWWhitewaterGrad:

geddymd72:

uwmfan:

shipitdear:

radio silence:

and the offense was shut down by the Cubs.

No no my friend.  The offense had set the table numerous times for themselves.  THE OFFENSE WAS SHUT DOWN BY THE BREWERS A

ND THE OFFENSE LOST THE GAME. 

 

Yes, but we shut  down their offense. We deserved to have another shot. That game is all on the ump's very cowardly act.

Yeah, cowardly act. He didn't go after anyone. He simply called a ball the way he saw it.

 

Considering that's not the strike zone, this is not a good use of this picture.  Just because the guy is squating down, doesn't mean the height of the zone lowers.  The zone is about 4-6 inches higher.

Actually it does. The zone is formed after the crouch before the swing, and does change the strike zone from whatever the initial stance he may have shown in the batters box.

As quoted from MLB.com:

"The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball." (1988 definition)

If he crouches before his intent to swing, that is where the zone is determined.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/strike_zone.jsp

It is interesting to note that in High School baseball, the strike zone IS determined by the batter's "normal" stance, but it IS NOT in Professional, NCAA, NAIA, or American Legion.

stix:

geddymd72:

bobby12many:

geddymd72:

 See above. It is not that clear cut. Pitch #9 just isn't the perfect strike you think it is.

 

 

News flash!

 

Umps use their eyes in real life, not a graphic representation of the call.

 

Stop trying argue about the call, as you wont change anyone's mind about it.

 

Fine, check out the real life view:

 

It sure isn't right down the center.

God, you really are a miserable pile of s***, aren't you?

As my last post for awhile, I would just like to say that you are a cantankerous rat who shouldn't be allowed to be employed, married, have children or allowed to mingle with human society.

Yes, I'm negative, but I want the Brewers to win. Not only do you trash the Brewers (which I do, too, when I'm frustrated), but you LOVE when they lose, because you can tell everyone "I told you so." You're a stinking front-runner, the most pathetic species of human being on earth. You'd be back in England during the Bubonic Plague and say, "That's OK, personally I've always rooted for the rats."

You ARE a Cubs fan, jacka***. You're HAPPY that DiFelice and the Brewers got screwed. Anyone in their right mind knows that was a strike, but you have to sit here and defend it like you're Jake Fox himself. What a pathetic f***er you are.

Yeah, I may be negative, I may say things in the heat of the moment, but I'm NEVER happy when the Brewers lose like you are. I was livid over that call, just like I would expect all fellow Brewers fans to be. But you're not one.

You're a pathetic, stinking, front-running rat. F*** yourself.

You make a very good point Stix.  A very good point!  I was throwing stuff at the tv and broke my radio because of the call.  I think the ump was a Cubs fan and he should be beaten sensless with a bar of soap inside a sock.  It was rediculous, pure and simple. 

geddymd72:

Actually it does. The zone is formed after the crouch before the swing, and does change the strike zone from whatever the initial stance he may have shown in the batters box.

As quoted from MLB.com:

"The Strike Zone shall be determined from the batter's stance as the batter is prepared to swing at a pitched ball." (1988 definition)

If he crouches before his intent to swing, that is where the zone is determined.

http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/umpires/strike_zone.jsp

It is interesting to note that in High School baseball, the strike zone IS determined by the batter's "normal" stance, but it IS NOT in Professional, NCAA, NAIA, or American Legion.

geddymd72:

uwmfan:

shipitdear:

radio silence:

and the offense was shut down by the Cubs.

No no my friend.  The offense had set the table numerous times for themselves.  THE OFFENSE WAS SHUT DOWN BY THE BREWERS A

ND THE OFFENSE LOST THE GAME. 

 

Yes, but we shut  down their offense. We deserved to have another shot. That game is all on the ump's very cowardly act.

Yeah, cowardly act. He didn't go after anyone. He simply called a ball the way he saw it.

 

 The pitch f/x location was posted in the "whining about a blown call" or game thread from that day.

BTW, pitch f/x shows clearly that the pitch was indeed a strike, if you go back and look at the GameDay.

Gosh do I hate Cameron - the guy K's just way too much.

alffan:

Gosh do I hate Cameron - the guy K's just way too much.

You don't hate Cameron.