Jump to content

04/16/2023 1:10 pm EDT San Francisco Giants vs Detroit Tigers


casimir

Recommended Posts

It may not have rained in that area but the weather was stormy around the region in a fast moving unpredictable way.   This was middle of summer Florida weather.  I don’t blame them at all for not starting.  It’s not the rain it’s the lightning that is an issue. There’s precise rules about distance and time of strikes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I wonder how much the fact that both bullpens, particularly the Giants bullpen, have been taxed in the first two games factors into this.

Risking starting and stopping the game may be less than ideal for both Hinch and Kapler knowing this

Probably a lot. Nobody wants to start/stop.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gehringer_2 said:

If they start after 6:30 they won't have to stop. That's a reeealy long delay but if they haven't called it yet what's another hour?

The fact that they haven't called it yet makes it seem pretty likely they will go ahead with it, although I've been wrong before lol 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, oblong said:

They should allow expanded rosters for make up games. That way teams might be willing to use a mutual off day later in the season.  I believe there’s much more collaboration between teams and the league now on if and when to start. If both teams are fine with waiting it out and playing in 50 degree weather with high winds at night so be it.  I bet that if SF said “look we’d rather get going for tomorrow” I think the tigers and league are fine with it.  The effects on the team in terms of wear and tear are the same now as it would be later on the season at this point.  

There used to be union rules about playing too many games in a row with no days off. There may still be but I haven't heard about it in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, wolverinefan said:

Postponed. Interesting why it took so long.

Yeah  - the radar forecast has not changed since about 2. They knew it was either after 6:30 or call it - so this doesn't make a lot of sense. But then these things tend to be driven by frustration logic as much as anything else.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since the rain appears to be moving out, it must be for reasons on top of the weather. Maybe each team is concerned that icing their starters for so long would increase injury risk to an unacceptable level, particularly if they were going to have them throw in the frigid damp nighttime conditions. Maybe they figure they're better off taking a chance on July 24 rather than running that risk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Since the rain appears to be moving out, it must be for reasons on top of the weather. Maybe each team is concerned that icing their starters for so long would increase injury risk to an unacceptable level, particularly if they were going to have them throw in the frigid damp nighttime conditions. Maybe they figure they're better off taking a chance on July 24 rather than running that risk.

So if I remember the rules and they haven't changed - a game that hasn't started yet is up to the home team, one that has is in the hands of the umpires? You could read between the lines from the video that Kapler wanted to play but the Tigers decided not to  - maybe.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And if the Giants sat around believing they would play when the rain stopped and the Tigers changed their minds, he's got a legit beef.

Given the Tigers' pitching injury history I can believe they meant to play but then bailed exactly because it was getting cold and windy.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

So if I remember the rules and they haven't changed - a game that hasn't started yet is up to the home team, one that has is in the hands of the umpires? You could read between the lines from the video that Kapler wanted to play but the Tigers decided not to  - maybe.

I don’t know the current rules either but I have a hard time believing this wasn’t a mutual-ish decision.  I think most of these are. On paper I guess one side has to have final authority but outside or bitter rivalries I think they come to a decision together.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, oblong said:

I don’t know the current rules either but I have a hard time believing this wasn’t a mutual-ish decision.  I think most of these are. On paper I guess one side has to have final authority but outside or bitter rivalries I think they come to a decision together.  

I would be curious to learn more about what happened here, but it seems unlikely that the Giants weren't involved every step of the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, mtutiger said:

I would be curious to learn more about what happened here, but it seems unlikely that the Giants weren't involved every step of the way.

I'm sure they were in the loop but you can't assume the two sides agreed in the end either. It's not like you can horse trade to get to an agreement where both side get what they want - it's a binary choice. If two sides don't agree, someone makes a decision and someone else goes away unhappy. 

It happened at least once to the Tigers last season - I don't remember which side of the decision the Tigers wanted but I remember the home team did not agree and that's the way it was.

Edited by gehringer_2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...