|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 4, 2014 10:09:09 GMT -5
When you look at all 4 games vs Arizona, we made a ton of thundering contact that found leather.
They're lucky we didn't sweep the series, and sweep in double figures in 3 of the 4 games.
I'm not counting foul balls, but fair ones.
Great start to the season
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Apr 4, 2014 10:46:52 GMT -5
Good start, no question. Not sure about "great." Great would have been seeing Cain and Lincecum pitch a little better.
Offensively? Great.
Belt has almost put my doubts to rest.
Pagan has proven to be the spark. Nobody other than Posey is as valuable to our offense than Pagan. With Pagan leading off I feel we can and should beat anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Apr 4, 2014 13:18:27 GMT -5
The only game we lost we scored four runs in the top of the first with Matt Cain pitching, so yeah, we could've easily swept. Very impressed by our offense and come from behind ability, last year when we got a couple of runs behind the game was over. Going to be a fun year, and BEAT LA!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 4, 2014 14:53:49 GMT -5
Boagie -- Nobody other than Posey is as valuable to our offense than Pagan. Rog -- By the end of the season, I expect Belt, Sandoval and probably Pence to have better numbers than Angel. Perhaps Michael Morse, as well. One good thing about Angel though is that he has done his best hitting in the leadoff position. His .340 career OBP there is just OK, but he has a lot of pop for a leadoff hitter. Angel has also played some of his best ball with the Giants, particularly offensively. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2219/loud-louder#ixzz2xwtPdaPP |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 4, 2014 21:17:37 GMT -5
boagie--Good start, no question. Not sure about "great." Great would have been seeing Cain and Lincecum pitch a little better.
Offensively? Great.
Read--Boly says.---
I wasn't talking about the pitching, Boagie, just the offense.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Apr 5, 2014 6:45:21 GMT -5
A 4-1 start on the road against divisional rivals is pretty great anyway you look at it. Now we have Bumgarner and Cain going the next two days and a chance to really do something.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Apr 5, 2014 11:23:46 GMT -5
You'd think we stand a good chance today with Bummy going against Paul Maholm, but crafty lefties can give the Giants fits.
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Apr 5, 2014 13:10:56 GMT -5
Maholm is only 2-3 with a 4.10 ERA lifetime against the Giants, so they've done a decent job against him in the past. Madison Bumgarner, on the other hand, is 8-3 against the Dodgers lifetime with a 2.58 ERA, which gives the Giants even more of a pitching advantage.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Apr 6, 2014 1:25:23 GMT -5
And now we have a chance for a sweep. Impressive so far. But for a game with incompetent umpiring, we could be undefeated. We even overcame Joe West behind the plate today.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 6, 2014 4:12:46 GMT -5
Allen -- But for a game with incompetent umpiring, we could be undefeated. Rog -- Allen, if you had said bad umpiring, I would have to agree. But by saying incompetent umpiring instead, you defeated your own purpose. It would be as if you said the Giants lost a game by incompetent hitting, pitching or fielding. It wouldn't be that those areas were incompetent, but that they were bad. The umpires aren't incompetent at their job any more than the players are at theirs. But both umpires and players have bad games. Incidentally, the Giants didn't bother to score in the last eight innings of that game, or they would have been at least tied. Was that because of incompetent hitting or because their hitting suddenly was bad for quite a stretch? Incidentally, we still don't know for sure that the runner was truly picked off first (although I agree with everyone else here that he probably was). And as Andrew Baggarly wrote, the call at home plate was a tough call. Should the umpire have gotten it right? Of course. The umpires should get every call right, just as pitchers should always throw unhittable strikes and batters should hit the ball so hard on every swing that it can't be caught. Someone here wrote that the runner stepped on Matt Cain's glove. In reality, the runner grazed Matt's glove on his way to hitting the plate. The umpire told Matt he thought the runner had stepped over the tag. Looking at the play live, the umpire was wrong. After looking at replay after replay, the poster was also wrong. Who had the tougher call? The umpire. Who was the more competent to make the call? The umpire. Oh, wait. That would make him the more competent of the two, not incompetent as was written above. A bad call? You bet. An incompetent one? Hardly. Incidentally, despite all the calls they miss, umpires today are BETTER umpiring the bases than the old-timers. Do you know how I came to that conclusion. Today's umpires get better angles. Look at film of old games, and you'll see what I mean. Let's get this straight, Allen. I'm not saying the umpire didn't miss the call, and I'm not saying he shouldn't have. I'm not making any kind of excuse. I'm not even bothering to tell you why he may have missed the call, since you almost certainly wouldn't listen anyway. What I'm saying though is that the umpire wasn't incompetent -- just as no player who has made the major leagues (with the possible exception of the war years, and probably not even then) has been incompetent. Do you know how hard it is to make the major leagues -- whether player, manager or umpire? If one is incompetent, it just doesn't happen. There's too much competition. Get it that competent and competition have similar roots and are identical in their first five letters? Heavy competition almost always leads to competency. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2219/loud-louder#ixzz2y5vpQnzl |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Apr 6, 2014 5:33:48 GMT -5
It was an easy xall, it was right in front of h and he had a good angle. Given that he also missed a ton of ball/ strike calls, it was not a competent job.
You would have to really struggle to find a reason not to call the guy out on the pickoff as well. The replay was pretty clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Apr 6, 2014 5:59:26 GMT -5
How hard is it to become President? Yet we've had an incompetent one for six years.
How many players make the majors but don't stick? Sometimes one gets promoted to a level they're just not capable of handling. Some, one gets to a level, then allow themselves to become incompetent, like Joe West.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 6, 2014 9:46:28 GMT -5
Allne- And now we have a chance for a sweep. Impressive so far. But for a game with incompetent umpiring, we could be undefeated. We even overcame Joe West behind the plate today.
---boly says--- I only caught the game from the 6th on, but INCOMPETENT... is being too kind.
For both sides, I would just sit there, mouth agape, and wonder, what the heck?
Joe is truely clueless back there. Truely.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by rxmeister on Apr 6, 2014 10:20:53 GMT -5
Did you guys hear Justin Bateman as the Dodgers guest PA announcer yesterday? He was pretty funny. After Brandon Belt and Brandon Hicks batted, he said, " now batting, yet another Brandon, Crawford." After Pence came to bat after throwing out someone at the plate, he said, " now batting, rally killer Hunter Pence!" And when Posey had his next at bat after hitting the HR, he said, "now batting, ugh, Buster Posey." I'll take him over Runel any day!
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Apr 6, 2014 13:52:56 GMT -5
How hard is it to become President? Yet we've had an incompetent one for six years. How many players make the majors but don't stick? Sometimes one gets promoted to a level they're just not capable of handling. Some, one gets to a level, then allow themselves to become incompetent, like Joe West. dk..actually, Bush lasted 8 years.... |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Apr 6, 2014 14:23:17 GMT -5
Didn't hear Bateman, but I like that he had some fun with it. I'd rather hear dead silence or even Jay Carney than Runel.
Damage wise, comparing Obama to Bush is like comparing Katrina to a light rain.
|
|
|
|
Post by donk33 on Apr 6, 2014 23:24:44 GMT -5
Didn't hear Bateman, but I like that he had some fun with it. I'd rather hear dead silence or even Jay Carney than Runel. Damage wise, comparing Obama to Bush is like comparing Katrina to a light rain. dk..well, you have finally seen the light... |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Apr 7, 2014 1:26:45 GMT -5
Yes, and America is in for years of darkness like we have never known. Countries like Syria and Pakistan are slapping us around. Our healthcare system is destroyed, and our freedoms are being taken away from us.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 7, 2014 9:36:31 GMT -5
Allen -- It was an easy xall, it was right in front of h and he had a good angle. Given that he also missed a ton of ball/ strike calls, it was not a competent job. Rog -- So if Rick Barry missed two free throws in a row (which I have seen him do), he's not a competent free throw shooter? My point was that there is a difference between a bad call (such as a major league umpire might make) and an incompetent one such as you (and perhaps I at this point) might make. Allen -- You would have to really struggle to find a reason not to call the guy out on the pickoff as well. The replay was pretty clear. Rog -- And yet I have seen some Giants fans who have said the replay wasn't clear enough, that they should have saved their challenge for another play. Do I think the guy was out? Yes. Am I sure -- after watching all the replays -- he was out? No. Replay is showing a couple of things. First, umpires certainly DO miss calls. Second, some of those calls are really close. Don't forget too that I have said that umpires are occasionally going to miss calls that should have been obvious. I don't know the reason for it, but I do know it happens even to competent umpires. The only comparison I can make would be to ask you if you've ever had a decision -- even one you had plenty of time to make -- that you looked back on and thought, why did I decide to do THAT? I know I certainly have. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2219/loud-louder#ixzz2yD87McVP |
|
|
|
Post by allenreed on Apr 7, 2014 14:26:40 GMT -5
In Barry's case, on that trip to the line he was incompetent. During that game, the home plate ump was incompetent.
Like many of our arguments this comes down to semantics. You would say the ump had a bad game, I was looking for a word meaning beyond bad, which in my opinion he certainly was. I chose incompetent. I could have just as easily chosen wretched I guess.
Perhaps that's one of those decisions I'll regret, and to answer your question, yes there have been many. I'd say at those times I was an incompetent decision maker.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 7, 2014 22:06:21 GMT -5
Allen -- In Barry's case, on that trip to the line he was incompetent. Rog -- Rick Barry was never incompetent as a free thrower as far as I know. He missed two in a row though. Might have missed three in a row at some point, and probably did. But I don't believe he was ever incompetent. Incompetent means not having or showing the necessary skills to do something successfully. Rick was hardly incompetent. Nor is any pro official I know of. Some may not be great; some may have off nights, virtually all will miss calls; but almost none is incompetent. The competition is fierce enough to make it almost impossible for an incompetent official to rise to the major league level. By the way, one of the three refs in the NCAA championship game tonight is Verne Harris, with whom I worked at Cal when we went over Pac-12 games immediately after the games. This is Verne's 7th Final Four appearance, and I believe at least his 3rd Championship game. A few years ago Verne was written up in the Wall Street Journal around tournament time. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2219/loud-louder#ixzz2yG8acrOk |
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Apr 9, 2014 15:03:19 GMT -5
Rog -- Allen, if you had said bad umpiring, I would have to agree. But by saying incompetent umpiring instead, you defeated your own purpose. It would be as if you said the Giants lost a game by incompetent hitting, pitching or fielding. It wouldn't be that those areas were incompetent, but that they were bad.
Boagie: It's the beginning of the season, can't we find something better to talk about than arguing over someone's choice of words?
Allen is right. Some umpires out there are incompetent. If they were in a line of work where lives were at risk they would have been fired a long time ago.
Face it, Rog, some umpires out there just plain suck and they're being protected by the union. If you truly cared about the profession like you lead on, you'd want them gone more than anyone.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 9, 2014 16:50:44 GMT -5
Boagie -- Allen is right. Some umpires out there are incompetent. If they were in a line of work where lives were at risk they would have been fired a long time ago. Rog -- I suspect there is the occasional exception, but here is why I don't think many if any major league umpires are incompetent: . The competition to reach the major leagues is fierce. . If questionable umpires are going to be protected by the union, Major League Baseball is going to be particularly careful to hire guys whose psychological profile is likely to lead them away from slacking off. . Umpires first go to a rigorous training camp -- at their own expense -- to try to get hired to umpire in the majors. Only a small percentage make the cut just to get into the minors. . Umpires usually perform a long apprenticeship in the minor leagues before they get a shot at umpiring in the majors, and most don't make it that far. . You've really got to want to umpire to try to make it a career. Umpires don't make much money at all until they reach AAA, and that in itself usually takes quite a few years. . Many umpires are hired as replacement umpires before they get a chance to be hired as full-time major league umps. Those umpires fill in on vacations and in case of injury. . The fill-in umpires don't automatically get a full-time major league slot. I personally know and have been trained by an umpire who was let go just before he was going to umpire enough in the majors to qualify for his pension. . I'm not sure how much protection MLB umpires receive, but they are reviewed like crazy. Just go to this MLB.com article and see what I mean. If you don't take the two or three minutes to read the MLB.com article, don't call the MLB umpires incompetent. Umpires miss calls, just like basketball players miss free throws and major league pitchers don't always throw strikes. That doesn't make the basketball player, the pitcher or the umpire incompetent. Boagie -- Face it, Rog, some umpires out there just plain suck and they're being protected by the union. If you truly cared about the profession like you lead on, you'd want them gone more than anyone. Rog -- I absolutely would want an incompetent umpire gone -- even more than you would. But read the article before you call them incompetent. They are subject to FAR more scrutiny -- from managers, players, fans and their own half-dozen supervisors and dozen observers -- than you or I have received on our jobs. We want umpires to be fair in judging calls. We should be willing to be fair in judging them. All umpires miss a lot of calls, which should indicate to us that umpiring isn't nearly as easy as its critics seem to believe. Can you name even one umpire who doesn't miss a lot of calls? If there isn't even one, either ALL of them are incompetent or it's a lot tougher to umpire than you think. So why do so many think umpires, for lack of a better term, stink? Much of it is because since we are fans, we are very emotionally involved when a call is missed. It can stick with us for a long, long time, whereas correct calls are almost immediately forgotten. Some of it is because today's technology often gives us a better look at plays than the umpires themselves. Boly is a good baseball fan and an even finer man. Yet he readily admits he doesn't like umpires. Clearly that shows bias, since it is highly unlikely ALL the umpires he has seen are bad. I've seen plenty of poor (by major league standards) hitters and pitchers, but I don't dislike them as a group. I judge them individually. You say I should want incompetent umpires gone. Heck, I have gone on record as saying I would have no problem is ALL umpires were gone. I believe the technology is available to make virtually EVERY call correct. I have said I would have no problem if MLB went to it and eliminated umpires entirely. I can understand why Allen, you and probably others think I'm biased toward officials. I'm not so sure that is true. I have been involved in critiquing them, which means part of my responsibility was identifying flaws -- and why they might have occurred. I have stated that I wouldn't mind if ALL MLB umpires were replaced. I think I'm reasonably objective about officials. As fine a man as Boly is, can he say the same? I see the same missed calls everyone else here sees. I may be a little more objective about it, but the primary difference is that I try to identify here WHY the official may have missed the call. Almost any baseball fan can identify most missed calls. It takes a little more expertise to identify WHY they were missed. My suggestion here would be that we all (including myself) try as hard as we can to be objective about officials. And before we simply say these guys are incompetent, let's take a closer look at WHY a call may have been missed and why they are missed at all. When I was an official, I tried to bet as much video tape evidence as I could to see which calls I missed. Then I tried to figure out WHY I missed the call, so that I could avoid doing so again. One thing we might try to do is look at close plays and see live whether we think the runner was safe or out. Our TV angle is often better than that of the umpire himself. Then see how the replay makes the call appear. See how often we are wrong. And believe me, if we are honest, we WILL be wrong. And so will umpires -- although likely not as often as we are. I've umpired, and I get more close calls right on TV than I get wrong. But I miss a lot of calls too. Live, I doubt that many if anyone here can do better. Try it for a month of games and see how high your percentage is. Remember to be honest and go with the call you would make LIVE, not the one you would go with after replay. If we're honest, we miss a lot too -- despite often having a better look than the umpire himself had. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2219/loud-louder#ixzz2yQS1qLHj |
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 9, 2014 18:37:18 GMT -5
Rog--Boly is a good baseball fan and an even finer man. Yet he readily admits he doesn't like umpires. Clearly that shows bias, since it is highly unlikely ALL the umpires he has seen are bad. I've seen plenty of poor (by major league standards) hitters and pitchers, but I don't dislike them as a group. I judge them individually.
---boly says---
You're right, Rog, I am biased, and I admit it.
But that doesn't stop me from giving them credit where credit is due. When they make a good call on a tough play, even though there is no one around to hear it, I voice it anyway.
I don't dislike them as PEOPLE, I dislike the half-assed job so many of them do.
Before I was a teacher, and also in summers while I was a teacher, I worked in the business world.
My wife is the president of a Guardian (Health Care) subsidiary.
I know what I've seen in employees, and I know what she has told me she continually sees employees do.
Based upon her testimony, and also conversations with my brother, Rick, who was a Federal Agent for 25 years, I've come to the conclusion that in ANY job... ANY job, between 20% to 30% of employees are absolutely useless.
Either they're burned out, don't care, don't try, just were flat out incompetent to begin with, or all of them together.
My brother says that when he was still active, that number (of useless agents) was closer to 35/40% than my 30%
But I'll stick with my concservative 30%
There is a lot of scrutany to be a MLB umpire, but equal to, or more scrutany to be in the top of any field.
Any field.
Teachers, for example have soooo many farging hoops to jump through, it's amazing ANY make it to the classroom
Still, easily 30% of the teachers I've seen in my 32 + years are terrible!
Therefore, I contend that the same applies to umpires.
My point has ALWAYS been the same with them.
In football,they make up their minds BEFORE a game what a team is guilty of, and then go gunning for it.
In baseball, it's the umpire with the golf ball-sized strike zone, or the moron who ALWAYS believes that in a close play IF the ball arrives first, the runner HAS TO BE OUT.
Nonsense.
That's why they slide.
Do all of them do that?
No, they don't.
But tooooooo many do.
And thus, I don't like, nor trust them.
boly
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 10, 2014 9:48:06 GMT -5
Boly -- In baseball, it's the umpire with the golf ball-sized strike zone, Rog -- Before last night's game, Mike Krukow's scouting report on the umpire was that he had an extremely small strike zone. I didn't see it (nor did Mark Trumbo). Boly -- or the moron who ALWAYS believes that in a close play IF the ball arrives first, the runner HAS TO BE OUT. Rog -- When I umpired I took the position that the runner was safe until he was out. Even if the ball beat him, I needed to see a timely tag. If I were starting over, I would take the position that if the ball beat the runner, he was out until he was safe. I would need to see that the runner got around or under the tag. If not, I would call him out. There aren't too many missed tags in the majors, and on those that are, the umpire can't always clearly see that the tag is missed. It isn't possible to get the best angle on all plays. Once again I would ask our posters to make their own judgement -- live -- on close plays, then see how accurate they are based on the replay. I believe pretty much every honest observer will see that -- live -- he misses quite a few of the close ones. As I mentioned, I have umpired, and I don't always get them right. I don't believe anyone else here will do so, either. It's just not that easy. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/2219/loud-louder#ixzz2yUj7ETQm |
|
|
|
Post by islandboagie on Apr 10, 2014 10:56:20 GMT -5
Rog- Once again I would ask our posters to make their own judgement -- live -- on close plays, then see how accurate they are based on the replay.
Boagie- I think we already do this, I know I do. The hardest call for me is the close play at first, sometimes I'm wrong while the umpire is right, but I believe hearing the ball hit the mitt helps make that call, something I can't benefit from if I'm watching it on tv.
Balls and strikes are easy. Balls and strikes alone I can tell you I am far more accurate at calling them then the home plate umpire. I think it has to do with the angle I get, but then again, the fans at the park immediately react to questionable calls, and they dont have a better view than the umpire. When fans get upset I've found that they have a legitimate gripe.
On the call that started this discussion, it was clear to me Cain had tagged the runner out. On the replay it was even more clear.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rog on Apr 10, 2014 22:41:57 GMT -5
As for employees overall, maybe I simply haven't seen enough, but while I have indeed seen incompetent employees, the percentage has been pretty low.
But let's say 30% or higher is right. I'm going to guess that less than 10% -- perhaps far less -- of umpires who attend the professional umpire camp make it to the majors. If 30% those who try are incompetent, that means 70% are competent. Since baseball has plenty of chance to evaluate umpires before they make the major leagues, why wouldn't they be able to choose umpires who aren't in the top 70%?
I think you would agree it's pretty easy to identify those who are incompetent. As a baseball fan, I believe you feel it is easy to identify incompetent umpires. If it's that obvious, why would baseball promote the incompetent ones up through each of the seven or so levels so that they would reach the major leagues?
If you were able to choose less than 10% of the teachers you were evaluating and had years to evaluate them, how many of the 10% you chose would be in the 30% incompetent group rather than the 70% (or so) competent listing?
I'm going to guess that if you were to choose 60 teachers from a population of 600 or more after evaluating them for five years or more, you feel you would miss with very few of the 60 teachers. You would have a hard time imagining you would choose even ONE who was incompetent.
You don't know nearly as much about umpiring as you do about teaching, but I would be willing to bet that if you were able to evaluate 600 umpires for five years, you would pick very few of your top 60 who were incompetent.
If we assume that 30% of major league umpires are incompetent, we're pretty much assuming 100% of evaluators are incompetent. Keep in mind that it isn't just one evaluator who is making the decision after five or so years. It is MANY evaluators.
Coincidentally, it was five years I worked with Pac-12 basketball referees in the dressing room right after Cal home games. I saw some excellent referees, some good but not great ones -- but I didn't see even one who was incompetent. Not a one.
Missed calls? You bet. Incompetent refs? In a top Division 1 conference? Not that I could see. And I was involved in evaluating them. Being at Cal, I got to see most of the top guys in the conference, but still ...
|
|
