[bootman]

Quote:

Originally posted by williamgoody Anyone know anything about Damon's condition?

Man, that was one wicked hit!

Last I heard he had a concussion and was being held overnight for observation.

 

[DanG]

The pitch was not high, and Williamgoody is right. What they could have done is swung at the ball and not hoped for a walked-in run.

The Sox played great and worked hard these last three games -- if there's a team that deserves to win the world series, it's these Boston Red Sox.

Go Sox!

 

[Voodoochile]

 

[Matthew-Spaltro]

That pitch was high? It was right over the heart of the plate. That was a Greg Maddux pitch that Maddux made famous. The A's blew NINE chances to win the series. You take two called strike 3 pitches in the ninth in a deciding game five

This is little league fundementals here. BTW, Hudson should have been no were near a bar in the opposing teams city. What was he thinking?

 

[DanG]

I'm sorry man, but I don't think we can blame Hudson. That was the Green Monster working for us. It can be very powerful.

 

[zeplin]

i've looked at extensive replays of the pitch (from many angles), and i'm sorry, it was high. it was literally above the strike zone. i'm not sure how many you can speak with exstensive experience, but when you're a pretty good hitter, as T Long is, if a pitch looks like a ball, you don't swing at it...especially when the pitcher walked three people before the last strike out and pitched many pitches that looked the same as the last pitch, which were called balls. plus, the fact that it was a very high pitch, do any of you know how hard it is to hit or even foul off such a high pitch...that's why a pitch like that is called a ball in normal circumstances. when i use to play, and it was not long ago, i could tell the way the ball was spinning, how high it was going to end up when coming accross the plate,...those are the types of things one gains from a lot of experience, and there are countless other ways of reading a pitch. it's a lot easier to sit back, watch the game on tv, and say what you think you could and should have done by analyzing what commonly is done in those situations. i'm just going by the facts, by the rules of baseball, and from my experience. we can argue semantics all day, but the fact remains, the A's lost. wether they lost by unfair calls, or by simply being beat has no bearing to the present. i'm simply speculating, what would have happened if the call was made correctly? who knows, not that many people care, accept for the people who really care and wonder...the A's fans.

 

[williamgoody]

Zeplin, two things.

1) If you have to consult replays of the pitch to see whether it was actually out of the strike zone or not, you HAVE to swing at it. You can't leave it to the umpire. Foul it off and wait on the next pitch. You don't lean on the umpire in that situation, or wait for him or count on it to be a ball. If you remember the ten pitch at bat Paul O'Neill had against Armando Benitez in the ninth inning of game one of the 2000 WS, he was reaching to foul off pitches that were further out of the strike zone than that pitch last night.

I'm not saying it was a strike, but you have to swing. You can't take that chance.

2) Lowe only walked the one batter. It was Williamson who walked the first two batters in the inning.

I'll say this, the last pitch of the game last night was more of a strike than that other strike three call Lowe got earlier in the inning. No way was that "back door" curve or slider a strike.

 

[vwap]

I thought it was high to begin with, and the replays just confirmed it.

But the A's blew it one too many times. Again.

Well, as sadistic as I am to see the Sox and Cubs lose, I guess it's another statistic to keep track of.. How many ALDS it takes for the A's to make it to the ALCS.

Back to the games!

 

[zeplin]

ummmm, the fact that i (and everyone else) wanted to look at the replay does should not reassure you to conclude it was a strike. in fact, the angle that is usually displayed on TV isn't accurate enough....the camera is placed above the batter and off to the side. it looked high from that horrible angle, and like vwap, i was just reaffirmed through watching the perfect angle that it was technically a ball. again, when a ball is being thrown at your eyes, not only do you not swing (i don't care what kind of situation it is or what all the anouncers and analyists think), but you chose not to swing at risk of popping it up or something else TO END THE GAME. baseball players swing at pitches they want, not balls...especially when the pitcher isn't giving them something to hit and all you need is one basehit! again again, it was easy for T Long, like 99% of the time, to tell it was a ball...so he did not swing. you just don't swing at such a high pitch. again, do you understand how hard it is to hit, or even foul off a pitch like that??? obviously you don't, and players surely know that ahead of time! just like people only with experience here on head-fi have the most valid opinions and input regarding headphones, the same goes for batting in baseball. i took batting practice from Vida Blue (sp?) and an ex Giants pitcher (Fred Briening, who is like a second father to me) for many many years...and to me they pitched like they did in the majors, and i could still tell if a ball at my eyes was going to be a ball, it's not that hard (there were many other countless times in which i was able to learn this). i don't care what the announcers or other people watching the game say about having to swing at a pitch like that, regardless the situation. the fact of the matter is, it isn't that easy to access a situation like that..."protect the plate." there are so many other factors that contribute to a players decision to swing the bat or not...it is so complex it's not even funny! i know this probably didn't matter in the end in terms of the A's distiny, but i just wasnt people to understand the way baseball is played, and how inconsisyent umpires chnge the games outcome bigtime! and i want to be clear about that last pitch. i'm not sticking up for the A's, i'm just saying what's right and what's wrong from a technical and experienced aspect.

 

[williamgoody]

Well excuse me, but I played the game as well. And I don't appreciate the insinuation that even if someone didn't play the game, that they couldn't imagine what it might be like to measure a potential ball versus a strike.

Name drop and rattle off all your experiences you want. It doesn't matter the level of which you play. The first thing they teach you is the strike zone as a hitter.

I also know what's it's like to guage the strike zone while at the plate. The whole point of swinging at that type of pitch is to foul it away to get a better pitch. You adjust and shorten your swing to the pitch in order to make contact. Hell, Matsui hit a pitch of similar height, if not higher, for a home run during the Twins series. You don't NOT swing at something for fear of popping out. They don't teach you that in baseball. They teach you about taking pitches, but they also teach you about protecting the plate in certain situations, of which that was one of them.

Look at the replay again, the ball was NOT at eye level. Strike or ball, I've seen it called as both. It wasn't at his eyes though, and it certainly was too close to take. Long was more at fault there than the call, in my eyes. And I've either played, coached, or watched the game for over twenty years, thank you.

Go on about TV angles and the axis of the earth all you want. In that situaton, you don't leave the bat on your shoulder. Short of the ball being in the dirt, or over your head, or behind you, you protect the plate by fouling off pitches until one of the aforementioned occurs, or you get a pitch in your zone to drive. If you strike out, you strike out, but you DO NOT leave the bat on your shoulder.

 

[nately]

voodoo, mind if i borrow that jpg for a couple weeks?

It's weird sometimes, living in Oakland. I love dropping by for dollar Wednesdays ($2 this year!) once in a while. But situations such as the Patriots/Raiders playoff game a couple years ago are proof that no matter where you go, you really can't change teams. I can't describe the sinking feeling I felt when that bunt bounced through the infield to end game 1.

I am convinced that the only way for the Red Sox to win the world series is through the Cubs, because they are the only team more cursed. And if they didn't have to beat the Yankees along the way, it almost wouldn't count. The stars are aligned... (except for the stupid Cibs losing game 1 a few minutes ago)

Anyway, as far as the last pitch goes, I honestly have no idea. The 3rd strike for the second out, I had to see the replay to be sure that it actually was a strikeout (it was), but the last pitch I didn't care at all because it was over. In any case, it took more than one called strike and a bar fight for the A's to blow yet another lead in the first round of the playoffs. I hate to say it, but those guys could choke on a grain of salt.

You know, that brings up an interesting (though trivial) point. As far as I know, the strike zone is officially supposed to be from the bottom of the knees to the letters (halfway between the waist and shoulders). But (as far as I know) every ump calls the strike zone from the top of the knees to just above the belt. Imagine how hard it would be to get a hit, much less a run...

 

[williamgoody]

I still don't think that the pitch Melhuse struck out on was a strike. I don't believe it ever caught the plate. That to me was a bigger call than the last pitch of the game, as there was only one out at the time and a fly ball could still tie the game.

Of course I still don't believe Dye was pinch hit for there.

 

[zeplin]

think what you want, but when i talked to my ex pitching coach today, he agreed with me. and there are different levels of play, but i don't want to get into that. and i'm not trying to outdo anyone here...if you think that, then you have the wrong idea about what i'm trying to say...the very simple point i'm trying to make. you don't always swing!!! simple as that. just because you were taught that doesn't mean it's the only way to go. obviously you weren't taught any other ways, and that says a lot about your knowledge. baseball is more complex than that. i go by what the umps have been calling strikes and balls for over 20 years now. you know, it's funny, when a person here on head-fi speaks badly about a headphone they've never heard, they get beat! but when people speak about baseball, with not the experience (or the same type of experience that is connected to a really high level of playing), it's ok, because you've coached a lot of baseball, and have probably watched many games. i don't watch that many games, i played in them. again, i don't wish to sound like i'm bragging, i'm just trying to tell you that in a high level of play, many people think the way i do...it is a whole new ball game from what most people are use to. and keep in mind that little league, high school ball, college ball, double A, tripple A, and the pros are all extremely different ways of playing, looking, and interpreting the game of baseball...extremely different. i just can't believe someone is so unwillingly able to conceive of any other way to handle that type of last pitch situation...to think that guarding the pitch is the absolute only way. you also have to remember, it's where the ball passes the plate, not where the catcher catches the ball. sure the ball was lower when the catcher caught it, but when it crossed the plate, it was high. i've been watching it and watching it just to make sure i might be wrong. but whatever

again, believe what you want!
i really hope the Red Sox do well though. if i want anyone to win the world series, it's them. they need this, and i feel the team wants it just as bad as the Cubs do, maybe even more considering their great come back. i'll be rooting for the Red Sox the rest of the way!


nately,
your last point is what i'm trying to say, and is why players don't swing at those pitches, no matter what the situation. does anyone have any idea how hard it is to hit (even touch) a 95 mph fast ball(maybe faster), let alone a 95 mph fast ball that is so high? i don't think many people have experienced that! i've tried, and i'm not that great of a hitter (i was a pitcher), and i couldn't do it. this why those pitches are called balls, and is why batters DO NOT swing at them. try to get that man!

 

[vwap]

I gotta agree with williamgoody here, regardless of where I thought that pitch was. While it seemed a bit too high for me, I'm not the hitter, and I'm not the ump.

zeplin, I agree that they don't teach you to swing at every pitch. However, in that situation, you've got to protect the plate. This is what makes the Yankees such a great team. Their players know how to compete, and how to win. I've seen time after time, where Yankee hitters will sit there and foul off marginal pitch after marginal pitch (and even some not-so-marginal ones), until they eventually get what they want. They wear you down, and don't go down without a fight. This is what experience gives you.

The Yankees just know how to win. I've got to give them that. In that situation, Long shouldn't have stood there with the bat on his shoulders. With 2 outs and a 2 strike count, you sure as hell better be protecting the plate. If it was close enough for us to still be debating it's location, it was too close to take. In that situation, he should have been swinging. Like williamgoody said, shorten up the swing and just fight the pitch off. In that situation, you shouldn't be looking for the fences anyway.

High or not, Oakland had too many chances they didn't capitalize on. Life goes on. Better luck next year.

Go Yankees.

 

[williamgoody]

Zep, with all do respect, Vwap is totally correct. Your knowledge may not be up to snuff either (as mine might not be as well). You are absolutely correct about taking pitches, but in that situation, you have to protect the plate. If it's in any way, shape, or form possible that it's a close pitch with two outs in the bottom of the ninth in the elimination game of a playoff series where you're behind, you're swinging to protect the plate. If there's one out, I lean a little more to taking it perhaps, certainly not with two outs.

The only guy in the big leagues right now that that pitch has more of a chance of being called a ball instead of a strike in that situation for might be Barry Bonds. Long isn't THAT great of a hitter. Plus I'm telling you, go back and check the pitch Hideki Matsui hit out in Minnesota in game three. It's almost, if not exactly, in the same spot.

In all the newspaper articles I've read, all the highlights with commentary, all the sports talk radio I've heard, and even on the A's message board, much much more reference to the fact that Long "ended the game with his bat on his shoulder" than whether that pitch was a strike or not is being made.

Zep,you're a great fan, and I have to say to even have a conversation of this depth with someone about baseball is fantastic. The A's are lucky to have a fan like yourself.