2012 Wild Card Games: Orioles vs. Rangers/Cardinals vs. Braves

Gm 1	BAL @ TEX	Fri	Oct. 5	8:30 PM	TBS
Gm 1	STL @ ATL	Fri	Oct. 5	5:00 PM	TBS

go BAL and I guess ATL. (I'm that sick of LaRussa and their October luck). O's haven't named a starter yet??

No surprise that my rooting interest is for Braves all the way through. O's in the AL.

Predictions? Ha.

im thinking i might go to the WC game, in case its larry's last stand

will these be on TBS.com (or whatever the TBS website is)?

don't have a tv and i'm assuming MLB TV, which i've already paid over $100 for, will royally fuck me once again

rooting for the cards, of course, but i can see ATL winning. they're certainly the better team.

Go Orioles, of course. If the cards don't make it, i'd love to see a orioles/nats WS

Go Orioles and ... hmm, go meteor?

I don't know of any sports cable outfit that simply simulcasts on the web, even ESPN has started to demand u log in w/ cable company info.

aw maaaan. guess i get to listen to the games on the radio again this year.

try the "I'm afraid Romney/Ryan will win" thread by del, I made him put a bootleg sports link on at the start so it wdn't be a waste.

HA, i didn't notice that! well, i'll give that a shot then, thanks!

TEX (gem from Darvish)
ATL

non-Fox postseason games available on MLB.tv for $5, according to mlb.com

$5 total

yeah, but i don't have fox either, so that's not so appealing. "pay even MORE money on top of the money you already paid to get access to some of the games!!"

thanks for the info though, who knows, i'll probably crumble and get it

in past years the mlb.tv postseason has not been real coverage, its just a bunch of unproduced camera feeds from the game since they didn't have rights to show the actual fox/tbs broadcast. don't know if thats still the case this year but caveat emptor etc

meh, i thought the home & CF angles up simultaneously (if that actually works!) were good enough. See if you can get better on the foreign-broadcast boots maybe.

I'm pulling so hard for the O's to crush the Rangers. It would sure as hell validate the new wild card rules -- the Rangers had a million chances to put away their division and couldn't do it.

O's and the Braves.

Orioles and Braves, please.

i want to timewarp past the experience of 5 consecutive terrible cardinal seasons so that it's ok to like them again!

Fredi's going with David Ross instead of McCann. A little surprising, but the right play imo.

do we have an oriole pitcher yet?

it's Saunders.

and Medlen-Lohse!

Atl for sure - not sure about the other...

will attempt to stay up for the Braves game tonight. Given who's on the hill and that it's NL I may get to bed by 1:00 if I'm lucky. Go Braves.

texas will score approx 70 runs off saunders

I guess this will be the big test of Med Dog's "stress? never heard of it" persona.

texas will score approx 70 runs off saunders

Orioles 71, Rangers 70

Showalter will hv Johnson standing by, surely, or possibly Chris Davis

fangraphs lighting up with theories that saunders will be pulled after one pitch just to mess with Ron Washington's platooning and/or bench depth. would be pretty funny if that happened.

intersting factoid: "Lohse-Medlen's combined win PCT (.867%) is the highest of any starting pitching match-up in #MLB postseason history."

that switch is almost something Stengel would've done. He used to pull starters in the third inning when they weren't being shelled, sometimes.

yeah i mean buck is going to have a super quick hook. rangs looked to be first ball hitting quite a lot early vs a's in game 162 (and it working). could see similarly vs saunders; then it comes back to if the o's can hit yu, my guess is the prob can and off we go

Eckersley just said "It's gonna be bullpen by committee" if Saunders runs into trouble.

well they left 3? sp's off the roster and minimized bench players to have the most options possible i think i read

or i had a fever dream to that effect

springsteen is singing abt some train

120/23 k/bb ratio is nice, dam

Medlen's bit during the press conference yesterday was half silence and nervous laughter.

craig "surrounded" that one

really good catch

Yaaaarg

rawse

yessss

God, how did we end up with Pete kozma starting this game at SS? Shit is bleak.

More than anything, I would love for the cardinals to get a real SS or 2B. (furcal is decent, but someone younger and not so injury prone. And for the love of god, anyone but skip Schumacher or Daniel Descalso)

i would love for the cardinals to spend eternity consumed by infernal flames

More than anything?

just remember, albert is sitting on his 40 year old ass while we are in the playoffs for 1-2 more hours.

s'what the guy on the teevee said too

the question is moot

Ron Washington has such a lost look.

yep that move did not backfire.

nice to see that joe nathan is still blowing big games

"oh you don't want to lose in some nonsense one-game playoff? WIN YOUR DIVISION" is like saying "oh you're poor? well work harder"

o come on now

During night games, Hamilton is blinded by the light reflecting off his white skin.

love to see a lazy welfare queen like the Texas Rangers go down

hold your tongue, Morbs!

there it is

MORE CHAMPAGNE

happy that the O's won.

I would like that blazer tbh

i'm actually cool with the orioles popping bottles. they should do it after every playoff win (if there's another one)

i support the orioles winning this stupid bullshit only bcuz of yankee storylines

People didn't want to call Texas blowing a five game lead with eight to play a collapse, pretty sure that'll change now.

Love the wild card system so far (shitty umpiring aside)... Of COURSE it's unfair, that's the point. If you want to guarantee a chance to play in a "fair" series, then win your division.

If you make this a best two out of three round then you'll see teams backing into the playoffs like they did in past years, and then what's the point of the 2nd wildcard other than pushing baseball into November? The Yanks and Rangers would have been resting their regulars and setting up their rotations for the past week rather than playing all out and trying to win every game.

That was a weird call in the Braves game, but they lost it with those two errors.

the Braves deserved to lose with all those errors and that chop.

the Rangers are just a joke, Ron Washington will never win the World Series.

gutted for the braves but yeah 3 errors gives you no chance.

hamilton was soooo bad. Thought darvish was v good, and saunders surprised me.

Boy, once you read the infield-fly rule verbatim, it becomes clear just how bad that call was. On both counts--the idea that it's a ball that can be caught "with ordinary effort," and the provision that "the umpire shall immediately declare" it an infield fly--Holbrook's call seems way off.

Good call! Neyer otm.

"IF an infielder were going catch a fly ball with ordinary effort in short left field, what would you expect him to do? Here's what I would expect him to do:

1. Run to the spot where he expects the ball to land, and slow down.
2. Yell "I got it!" while raising his hand, to warn off any nearby teammate.

Gosh, that's exactly what Pete Kozma did.

Before he stops and takes a few steps back toward the infield, he clearly believes he's got time to camp under the ball and make the play. For me, "camp" = "ordinary effort".*

* It's difficult to figure why Kozma gave up on the play; his postgame comments weren't particularly enlightening. But whatever Kozma was thinking, and what gave him that impression about Holliday, are not really germane to the issue at hand."

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/10/6/3463338/infield-fly-rule-controversy-braves-cardinals-wild-card

I've watched it a few more times, and the "ordinary effort" half of the rule is not as egregious as I thought; Neyer's got a point there.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N4Z5MIaISrU

I think the play required a little more than ordinary effort, but put that in the realm of subjectivity. I can't see any case that the umpire met the "immediately declare" standard, though. Neyer argues that the umpire probably helped the Braves by not calling it immediately. That seems irrelevant to me--he's supposed to call it quickly. (I'm not, incidentally, blaming the loss on the call. The Cardinals still could have gotten out of the inning, and I agree with the general feeling that the Braves threw away the game in other ways.)

he immediately declared it ONCE ITS INFIELD FLYNESS WAS APPARENT, which in this case took longer than usual.

(apparent to him, obv)

What I'd ask, then, is that why did it take him until the last split-second to determine its infield flyness (my new favourite noun)? If it's clearly an infield fly, he makes the call quickly, like he's supposed to. And if he doesn't, it's because he's not sure--hence, room for disagreement.

imo it's not ordinary effort if a player is still running backward, and isn't camped under the ball

he was camping!

In the Boy Scout or Paul Lynde sense? Posnanski thinks it was a "ludicrous" call:

http://joeposnanski.blogspot.ca/2012/10/wild.html#more

I've come around halfway--bothered by the lateness of the call, willing to concede that there's room for disagreement on the ordinary-effort interpretation.

I also think no one's ever had a higher flyness quotient than Bake McBride.

It all boils down to the "ordinary effort" interpretation, a judgment call; no unanimity possible. To me, the infielder catches that 90% (?) of the time if he's not called off by the LF, so a defensible judgment.

Maybe umpires stationed in the infield should have jurisdiction when it comes to activating the infield fly rule.

Neyer's argument is reasonable in the sense that he does a good job of interpreting the rule exactly as it's written, but in practice, I think that the umps don't an call infield fly on a play like that 95% of the time. There are other rules like that (e.g. a batter is automatically out if he hits the ball while standing outside the batter's box) that are loosely enforced in practice and it's sort of BS to suddenly start enforcing them differently, especially in a playoff game.

In other words, the umpire waits until he's certain it's a play the infielder can make. Kozma apparently thought it was a play he could make.

from that earlier article. this is not the rule - it's not whether the infielder can make the play, but rather whether an infielder would make the play ordinarily. the fact that komza's back was still to home plate by the time he waved off the outfielder tells me that his was a somewhat extraordinary effort. i get that it's a judgment call and don't think the braves can protest, but i don't think it was the right call

from BP chat on trash throwing:

William Woods:
You can't blame the Atlanta fans. None of them has ever attended a Braves game before.

haha nice

I lol'd.

I'm just happy that Ozzie Smith, years after having his career ended by chipper jones, was finally able to exact his revenge.

I know it's a closed book now, but here's James' reaction:

Any opinion on Infieldflygate? Or the infield fly rule in general?
Asked by: Bruce

Answered: 10/7/2012
1) The Infield Fly Rule is necessary.

2) It is helpful in general when referees don't blow calls, but I think the outcome was essentially Kosher. The left field umpire made the infield fly call ridiculously late on a ball that probably should not have been called an infield fly to begin with, so obviously the umpire blew it. But my read on the situation was that the shortstop was going to catch the ball until he was distracted by the umpire's signal or pulled off the play because of the umpire's signal. IF that is true, then there's no harm to the mistake.

Initially that seemed like an obvious interpretation that I'd missed--they end up with first and second, two out either way--but if you watch a clip where you can see both the umpire and the play in frame (in the clip above, you can't), there's no way in the world the shortstop's distracted by the umpire's arm signal; he never once looks in the umpire's direction, and the signal doesn't come until after he's pulled off the ball. So unless the shortstop's reacting to a verbal signal from the umpire that preceded the arm signal, the only possible interpretation is that the ball dropped because of crossed signals between the fielders. Which happens all the time--and, again, makes the infield-fly call pretty iffy, because I would think the possibility of miscommunication ought to be factored into the "ordinary effort" claim.

Yeah I don't buy James interpretation at all. Shortstop begged off because he thought the right fielder had it not because of the umps signal.

I don't see the point of the call to be honest. The main reason for fly rule is to prevent runners from being doubled-up on a pop up (which is a good reason for it to exist.) However in this case given the depth of the ball chances of a double-play were slim to non-existent imo.

Same point Posnanski stressed: "But the second reason seems more compelling to me. Why do we have an infield fly rule in the first place?...Where Simmons’ ball was hit, was a double play even possible? No. If runners are paying attention, there is no way in the world that Kozma could have dropped that ball and gotten a double play. Heck, from out there, it would have been hard for him to purposely drop that ball and even get one out."

"Why do we have an infield fly rule in the first place?"

I assume he means why in this case, not why ever, right?

I was thinking maybe the ump yelled Out?

I agree that the basic rationale for the rule's existence didn't apply here, but you can argue that by the letter, that doesn't matter.

"I was thinking maybe the ump yelled Out?"

If he that's hilarious.

I'm glad we're calling him the shortstop instead of Pete Kozma, because despite playing waaaaaaaay over his head since we were forced to call him up because of Furcal injuries, I've been trying to forget he exists.

There's no way the umpire's late call had an effect on the shortstop. Tr shortstop was either going to try for it and miss or leave it to Holliday when it was too late. He elected for the latter option. He and Holliday have been having communications issues every single time a ball is hit between them. Usually it ends up with a near collision, the ball miraculously caught, an holliday shaking his head in disgust as they head toward the dugout. This time it damn near sparked a riot!

BAN PETE KOZMA

Honestly I couldn't remember how to spell his name.

he made a kozmic effort.

I assume he means why in this case, not why ever, right?

I linked the Posnanski piece above if you want to read it in full. He's just throwing in a rhetorical flourish--i.e., the rule exists, and here's why.

Neyer has more on the IFR:

http://mlb.sbnation.com/2012/10/15/3476426/infield-fly-rule-atlanta-braves-pete-kozma-sam-holbrook-wild-card-game