Master Index of Archived Threads


After the horses have left the barn

Edgy DC Nov 16 2006 07:25 AM

From the Times: ROSTER CHANGES APPROVED Major League Baseball will put into effect a change next postseason that the Mets surely wished would have been in place this season. If the first game of a playoff series is rained out, the teams will be permitted to change their rosters. After Game 1 of the National League Championship Series was postponed, the Mets inquired whether they could replace a position player with a starting pitcher to prevent them from starting someone on short rest. The request was denied.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 16 2006 07:31 AM

In retrospect it didn't really matter. If the rule was in place, we might have had different starters in Games 4 or 7. The Mets won Game 4 anyway, and in Game 7 it wasn't a poor starting effort that caused them to lose.

Willets Point Nov 16 2006 07:34 AM

Did you edit this thread title? At first I thought it said "After the horseshave left the barn" and I was trying to figure out what a "horseshave" was. Whatever it is it doesn't sound pleasant for the horse.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 16 2006 07:35 AM

Somebody look up "horseshave" on Urban Dictionary.

cooby Nov 16 2006 07:36 AM

It did say that! Edgy is making up mysterious titles today!

Willets Point Nov 16 2006 07:40 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 16 2006 07:45 AM

[url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=horseshave[/url] horseshave isn't defined yet. OK all you neologists, time to come up with a definition for horseshave! OE: Why the hell isn't html working for links this week?!

soupcan Nov 16 2006 07:43 AM

Horseshave: Horseshit rated G.

Edgy DC Nov 16 2006 07:49 AM

Yes, I edited a space in there. Yes, in retrospect, the Mets coming up short had little to do with their pitching staff being pinched by the rainout. And I'm not sure I even necesarily support the rule. It's not too much to expect that a team submits their roster while accepting basic realitites like the possibility of a rainout.

Edgy DC Nov 16 2006 07:51 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Nov 16 2006 07:51 AM

="Willets Point"][url]http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=horseshave[/url] horseshave isn't defined yet. OK all you neologists, time to come up with a definition for horseshave! OE: Why the hell isn't html working for links this week?! It doesn't really work with a href links when you're linking a URL that has a term= or id= ending. You have to use the house tags to make the links.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 16 2006 07:51 AM

Especially when rain was in the forecast. I remember thinking (and saying) at the time that the Mets didn't properly account for the possibility of rain when they submitted their roster that Wednesday morning.

cooby Nov 16 2006 07:51 AM

I'm sure we hashed this out before, but did that (a rainout for the first game) ever happen before?

Benjamin Grimm Nov 16 2006 07:55 AM

I think Cards-Braves in 1982. They actually started the game and it was called after four innings. The Braves ended up wasting a start by Phil Neikro. The Cards also wasted a starter, but I guess they don't talk about that aspect anymore since the Cards went on the win the series.

Willets Point Nov 16 2006 08:03 AM

Edgy DC wrote: Yes, in retrospect, the Mets coming up short had little to do with their pitching staff being pinched by the rainout. I dunno about that. John Maine's short start in Game 2 left the barn doors open for Mota & Wagner to blow the game and Glavine struggled to hold the early lead in Game 5. Both those games were totally winnable for the Mets and a slight nudge in their advantage may have made the difference. The nudge could have come from a fuller, more rested rotation. Of course if the offense could have gotten a freakin' hit with men on base in Game 7 that would have helped too.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 16 2006 08:14 AM

But Maine would have started Game 2 anyway. They wouldn't have used their extra starter in the second game, I don't think. I think the move they probably would have made would have been to replace Anderson Hernandez with Dave Williams. Williams would have ended up either not starting (because of the second rainout, in St. Louis) or starting Game 7, a game in which the Mets did get a good starting effort.

Edgy DC Nov 16 2006 08:28 AM

Though no action has been taken, also on the table is instant replay. NAPLES · When it comes to instant replay, baseball general managers want to look it over. GMs plan to talk about the topic some more, and perhaps make recommendations in the future, even though they know Commissioner Bud Selig is against the having replays aid umpires' decisions. "There is sufficient interest in it that it really warrants further discussion," baseball senior vice president Joe Garagiola Jr. said Wednesday at the GMs' annual meetings. "There's no specific action item at the moment. We just want to keep talking about the different ways it could come into play and just keep kind of refining our thinking on the topic." GMs have repeatedly discussed the topic but know replays aren't likely to be used while Selig is in charge. Two years ago, GMs split 15-15 on a vote to further consider the use of instant replay. Chicago Cubs manager Lou Piniella, who has been known to speak his mind to umpires, doesn't think there's a need for replays. "Umpires do a really nice job," he said. "I think that's the way baseball has been played since inception. I don't see any reason to change it." Baseball revealed a number of statistics on umpires. The Questec computer system, used in 11 ballparks, said 94.91 percent of ball-strike calls were correct, up from 94.20 percent in 2005. That represents a decline from 8.65 to 7.64 missed pitches per game. Ejections dropped from 227 to 218 this year, and warnings fell from 79 to 68.

Willets Point Nov 16 2006 08:29 AM

What the hell are they doing in Italy?

seawolf17 Nov 16 2006 08:31 AM

In exchange for the $51 million, the Japanese baseball league agreed to fly everyone over there for cannoli.

metirish Nov 16 2006 08:38 AM

] "Umpires do a really nice job," he said. "I think that's the way baseball has been played since inception. I don't see any reason to change it." Yep,that's right Lou,they didn't have instant replay back in the day...

RealityChuck Nov 16 2006 08:51 AM

Instant reply really wouldn't do much for baseball. First of all, using it for ball/strike calls is madness -- the game would stop every few pitches in critical situations, a real drawback, especially since the knock against baseball is that it's too slow. Even if you limited it, it would slow down the game more than it would improve it. Then, how many times in a game would plays be questionable? Most defensive plays are clear cut.

Gwreck Nov 16 2006 08:57 AM

Willets Point wrote: What the hell are they doing in Italy? Florida.

Benjamin Grimm Nov 16 2006 09:03 AM

I was wishing that instant replay was available during the NLCS when it looked like the umpires might turn Spezio's triple into a homer. (That was the ball that Shawn Green almost caught.) Doesn't the NFL have some kind of a rule where you can only call for a replay analysis once or twice a game? If MLB had something like that, then you wouldn't have to worry about it being called into play on every ball or strike call. I also don't think it should even be allowed for balls or strikes. There's a whole 3D aspect to pitch calls that can make it inconclusive. It would make more sense for fair or foul, caught or trapped, tagged or not tagged (which also depends a lot on camera angle) or whether a runner beat a throw to the bag. And I think that all four (or six) umpires should have to agree that the replay is conclusive, or else the original call should have to stand. Having said all that, I don't have strong feelings either way about instant replay in baseball. If they apply the rules in a way that I approve of, I'd be okay with it. Tradition isn't a good argument against it, but other arguments may be better.

metirish Nov 16 2006 09:11 AM

I wouldn't want it, the game is fine the way it is IMO...

Edgy DC Nov 16 2006 09:33 AM

Instant replay would be of most use in fair/foul calls and homer/interference calls. Nobody is suggesting that cameras take over ball/strike calls.

old original jb Nov 16 2006 11:03 AM

A horseshave is an unecessary project that is somewhat tedious, serves no real purpose except of face time, and is assigned to you by your boss. You don't try to get out of it, though, because it's fairly easy and it's overtime so you get paid extra for it. Supervisor: "Sorry about all the horseshaves this week--the Suits up in Albany are really on my case to make everyone look extra busy before the semiannual audit. At least you're getting paid extra." Worker: "It's Ok, but it's hard for me to understand how the suits are going to be impressed by the fact that we've made four-color pie charts to document how many people here are using the decaf from the department vending machine."

Frayed Knot Nov 16 2006 11:06 AM

I wouldn't want to give a horse a shave -- and I certainly wouldn't want to see it on replay.

Willets Point Nov 16 2006 11:07 AM

Wow jb, you should submit that.

old original jb Nov 16 2006 11:34 AM

Willets Point wrote: Wow jb, you should submit that. Done. Now we get to see if it makes it past the review process!

Willets Point Dec 19 2006 03:52 PM

It should be noted that the Crane Pool is now officially responsible for a neologism.

Edgy DC Dec 19 2006 08:26 PM

Excellent. I can go on for one. More. Day.