Hongbit Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 This is wild… 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 11 minutes ago, Hongbit said: This is wild… That’s why I never cared much about DiMaggio’s streak. Meaning I thought it was overrated. Williams outhit him during that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 Ted Williams also had a better year than DiMaggio, but DiMaggio won the MVP. Williams batted .406 in 1941 and won the Triple Crown in 1942 and didn't get the MVP either year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 21 Share Posted May 21 11 minutes ago, oblong said: That’s why I never cared much about DiMaggio’s streak. Meaning I thought it was overrated. Williams outhit him during that time. Numbers don't always track logically. Close to home, from April to May Torkelson has raised is OPS by 134 points but his OPS actually fell by 15. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger2022 Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 4 hours ago, Tiger337 said: Ted Williams also had a better year than DiMaggio, but DiMaggio won the MVP. Williams batted .406 in 1941 and won the Triple Crown in 1942 and didn't get the MVP either year. Had he been a Yankee he would have won 3 or 4 more MVPs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 16 hours ago, oblong said: That’s why I never cared much about DiMaggio’s streak. Meaning I thought it was overrated. Williams outhit him during that time. Plus, DiMaggio, sure, he had a great eye and great bat control with power, but he also faced pitchers who threw probably in the mid-80s without weirdly-shaped pitches, including hardly any sliders, so they couldn’t strike anyone out. Plus, he could hit the ball into spacious outfields where fielders were pushed back to defend against the inside-the-parker, especially in Yankee Stadium, where CF was almost 500’ and even straight left was over 400’, and most of the other parks were also well over 400’ deep in the LCF alley, which allowed singles to drop in front of them—the conditions were the best they would ever be for a super-long hitting streak. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 16 hours ago, Tiger337 said: Ted Williams also had a better year than DiMaggio, but DiMaggio won the MVP. Williams batted .406 in 1941 and won the Triple Crown in 1942 and didn't get the MVP either year. Yeah, writers hated Ted Williams. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 I'm reading a book called Wingman, about the relationship between Williams and John Glenn that developed during the Korean War. Williams was not happy that he was called up for duty again after serving in WWII. He was still in the Marine reserves at the time. He tried to get out of it any way he could. That was news to me. However he did his duty and did it very well. They called him "Bush" as in "Bush League". John Glenn was called "Old Magnet Ass" because he attracked flak. He would do his bombing runs, then go back several times to shoot the area up "because he saw something". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatkoVarda Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 DD is a pretty great GM He has the Phillies at a MLB-best 35-14, a .714 winning % An April poll in The Athletic had Philly with the 11th best front office (Det 14) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 2 hours ago, chasfh said: Yeah, writers hated Ted Williams. What can you say? He was an easy guy to dislike. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chasfh Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 4 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said: What can you say? He was an easy guy to dislike. Right. and I believe it cost him MVP votes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 1 minute ago, chasfh said: Right. and I believe it cost him MVP votes. no question - and probably no different with writers today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiger337 Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 46 minutes ago, RatkoVarda said: DD is a pretty great GM He has the Phillies at a MLB-best 35-14, a .714 winning % An April poll in The Athletic had Philly with the 11th best front office (Det 14) He is a good GM, but the pattern is familiar - one of the highest payrolls in MLB and no dominant closer. The next step will be to gut the farm system. He does have great teams everywhere he goes though. He does what he is hired to do even if it might hurt after he leaves. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tenacious D Posted May 22 Share Posted May 22 4 hours ago, Tiger337 said: He is a good GM, but the pattern is familiar - one of the highest payrolls in MLB and no dominant closer. The next step will be to gut the farm system. He does have great teams everywhere he goes though. He does what he is hired to do even if it might hurt after he leaves. I largely agree with this, but the Tigers (Mike, Chris and Al) made the flawed decision to blow up the team and tank for several years. That didn’t have to happen—we still could have built a competitive team around Verlander, J.D. and some others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatkoVarda Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 this may have been correct, but crazy to call it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben9753 Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 I'll wait for the Jomboy breakdown Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 I'll defer to the rulebook as I don't feel like looking it up but I thought on an infield fly the play is dead. The runner can't advance at that point unless they go back to the bag. Seems like a situation where fielders could game the system... just move towards a runner and glance them and get the other out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gilmore Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 Zackly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gehringer_2 Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 (edited) 1 hour ago, oblong said: I'll defer to the rulebook as I don't feel like looking it up but I thought on an infield fly the play is dead. The runner can't advance at that point unless they go back to the bag. Seems like a situation where fielders could game the system... just move towards a runner and glance them and get the other out. I disagree this is correct even based on the rule book. The logical way this has to be read is that once IFFR is called, there is no out on the catch so there is no fielding 'play' - so there is no interference with a fielder making a play. Whether the SS catches the ball or not has no effect on anything - that is the whole concept of IFFR. The only interference that could come on an IFFR play would be if a runner tries to advance and someone blocked a fielder from making that play. There must be something at risk for there to have been an interference. But I'm confident the league will some find some pretzel logic to continue to defend bad umpiring. Edited May 24 by gehringer_2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RatkoVarda Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 per rulebook, call was correct. I don't think it should have been called, because the amount of interference was so very very minor. But as soon as IFFR called, batter was out. but play is not dead, as runners can advance at their risk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkelly Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 On 5/22/2024 at 11:18 AM, gehringer_2 said: no question - and probably no different with writers today. Just look at Barry Bonds. He doesn't get in the Hall of Fame yet David Ortiz does. Ortiz failed several PED tests yet the media loves him. 1991 MVP Terry Pendleton wins it and Bonds is 2nd. The claim was Pendleton came to Atlanta and led them to the playoffs, but Bonds was easily the player in the NL that season. 1994 MVP, Bonds finishes 4th that season. Now, Bagwell indeed was a worthy winner, but no way should anyone else have finished higher than Bonds. Not that big of a deal though. 1995 MVP, Bonds finishes 12th! He had the highest WAR among offensive players, had 40 more BBs than anyone else in the league, led the league in OBP and OPS yet according to sports writers there were 11 guys more valuable than him? If they gave the MVP to Maddux or Piazza, that would be acceptable but how in the bleep could they think 11 guys were more valuable than Bonds? 1996 MVP, he finishes 5th. Another season he should have won it. He was behind Chipper Jones (a media darling) who had no business being in the top 8. 2000 MVP. 2nd place. It's a joke that he finished behind Jeff Kent. Legit, he should have at a minimum of 2 more MVPs and possibly 4. He ended up winning 7 of them but I think the media just hated him and looked for anyone to give it to over him. And Bagwell, IRodriguez, Piazza, Thomas, Oritz, et al get into the hall of fame and he doesn't is just silly. I think all those guys should be in there so I don't have an issue with them getting in but how can you hold out Clemens and Bonds when you are throwing other roid users in there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oblong Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 Of what benefit is there to the runner trying to advance to touch a fielder? By obstructing them you are also obstructing yourself. There needs to be some kind of subjectivity for the umpire rather than the 1999 NHL style "In the crease rule"... which itself was hilarious as all seaon long they called it then the stanley cup winning goal it was overlooked. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalTiger Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 Sometimes common sense should prevail. No harm no foul. The umpires should be ashamed of themselves. The Orioles would probably agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gkelly Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 23 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said: Sometimes common sense should prevail. No harm no foul. The umpires should be ashamed of themselves. The Orioles would probably agree. I don't think the umpires have any shame. This is no different than Jim Joyce basically saying, I am bigger than the game and I will do what I want because I have the power and there isn't anything you can do about it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hongbit Posted May 24 Share Posted May 24 28 minutes ago, SoCalTiger said: Sometimes common sense should prevail. No harm no foul. The umpires should be ashamed of themselves. The Orioles would probably agree. The only common sense that prevails with MLB umps is that anything they say goes and nobody better ever question it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.