Rick Ankiel

[rambo2]

They might want to teach Ankiel what bases to throw to in the 1st inning.  He really opened the door for the Astros.  Nice of the Cards to make him their center fielder.

[mihoba]

His one throw got away, but he has a gun. He will prevent lots of runs from scoring with his arm.

[remy]

I'd take his arm in my outfield any day.

[jonbloozy]

He made a pretty decent throw trying to get Bourn at 3rd.  Luckily, Bourn is fast.  On the other throw, I think he was just trying to make a point to a Stros fan behind the plate.  Not sure what that point was.

[Limey]

He will prevent lots of runs from scoring with his arm.

Ankiel, or the 3rd base coach?

[rambo2]

He made 2 throws home when there was no chance to get the runner and it allowed the trailing runners to move up a base on both occasions.  Those were 2 huge errors in judgment that helped the Astros out big time.

[HudsonHawk]

He made 2 throws home when there was no chance to get the runner and it allowed the trailing runners to move up a base on both occasions.  Those were 2 huge errors in judgment that helped the Astros out big time.

I think the first one he had a shot, the ball just got away from him.  It happens. 

[rambo2]

I think the first one he had a shot, the ball just got away from him.  It happens. 

He didn't have much of a shot to get Matsui and it isn't a good idea to do that in the 1st inning.  He should have thrown it to 2nd where his teammate was calling for the ball.

[HudsonHawk]

He didn't have much of a shot to get Matsui and it isn't a good idea to do that in the 1st inning.  He should have thrown it to 2nd where his teammate was calling for the ball.

Again, I think he had a shot, had he made a good throw.

[JimR]

i'll take Ankiel on my team any day.

[pots]

He didn't have much of a shot to get Matsui and it isn't a good idea to do that in the 1st inning.  He should have thrown it to 2nd where his teammate was calling for the ball.

He had no shot to get Bourn at third in the first, that throw was a bad decision allowing Matsui to reach second.

The first throw home was not so ill advised.  Tough to tell how much Matsui shut it down when the throw was offline, but he was still 10-15 feet from homeplate when the ball hit the screen.  One would think Matsui was toast if that was online.  Even if he did shut it down I don't think he 10-15 feet shut it down.  Plus the screen is a bit farther away then the plate.

[pots]

He had no shot to get Bourn at third in the first, that throw was a bad decision allowing Matsui to reach second.

The first throw home was not so ill advised.  Tough to tell how much Matsui shut it down when the throw was offline, but he was still 10-15 feet from homeplate when the ball hit the screen.  One would think Matsui was toast if that was online.  Even if he did shut it down I don't think he 10-15 feet shut it down.  Plus the screen is a bit farther away then the plate.

That being said, I was not ay all that impressed with his arm.  Sure lots of power but the rainbow shots make it impossible to cut off and a guaranteed move up for the trailing runner whether he gets his guy or not.  And therefore probably worth testing his arm at every opportunity.  I have not watched him enough to know if the arch is part of his standard throw or if he was just off last night.  But if it is, it is rather pathetic.

[Taras Bulba]

That being said, I was not ay all that impressed with his arm.  Sure lots of power but the rainbow shots make it impossible to cut off and a guaranteed move up for the trailing runner whether he gets his guy or not.  And therefore probably worth testing his arm at every opportunity.  I have not watched him enough to know if the arch is part of his standard throw or if he was just off last night.  But if it is, it is rather pathetic.

You may want to let La Russa know this.  He is somehow under the impression that Ankiel has an arm.  Maybe being in baseball for most of his life has clouded his judgement to the extent that he does not realize that Rick Ankiel is a rag arm.

[pots]

Never said rag arm, his arm has tremendous strength.  He will throw out many baserunners.  But if the arch he threw last night is the norm then it will be too easy for trailing runners.

[Taras Bulba]

Never said rag arm, his arm has tremendous strength.  He will throw out many baserunners.  But if the arch he threw last night is the norm then it will be too easy for trailing runners.

Oh, okay.  You've watched Ankiel make a few throws, right? 

[JimR]

He didn't have much of a shot to get Matsui and it isn't a good idea to do that in the 1st inning.  He should have thrown it to 2nd where his teammate was calling for the ball.

NO! you throw toward home at a level that it can be cut. he had a shot at Matsui, but the ball sailed high. if he throws through the cutoff man's head, the hitter will not advance.

Baseball 101. no charge.

[MusicMan]

Ankiel's below-average arm

[JimR]

Never said rag arm, his arm has tremendous strength.  He will throw out many baserunners.  But if the arch he threw last night is the norm then it will be too easy for trailing runners.

you really are nuts. the ball flew out of his hand well above his release point. there was no "arch." you think that was his normal throw?

good grief.

[Ty in Tampa]

Ankiel's below-average arm

That arm should be tested at every opportunity.

[matadorph]

you really are nuts. the ball flew out of his hand well above his release point. there was no "arch." you think that was his normal throw?

good grief.

It was obvious from the moment the ball left his hand that the throw got far, far away from him.

[pots]

you really are nuts. the ball flew out of his hand well above his release point. there was no "arch." you think that was his normal throw?

good grief.

The throw to third was high arching as well and that one was right on target

[JimR]

That being said, I was not ay all that impressed with his arm.  Sure lots of power but the rainbow shots make it impossible to cut off and a guaranteed move up for the trailing runner whether he gets his guy or not.  And therefore probably worth testing his arm at every opportunity.  I have not watched him enough to know if the arch is part of his standard throw or if he was just off last night.  But if it is, it is rather pathetic.

ok, that's it for me. you are fucking nuts.

[JimR]

The throw to third was high arching as well and that one was right on target

bullshit. the throw to third on Bourn was a laser.

[Limey]

bullshit. the throw to third on Bourn was a laser.

In the GZ last night, the comment was made that only Bourn could've beaten that throw.

[ybbodeus]

I think the first one he had a shot, the ball just got away from him.  It happens. 

Absolutely, even to the greats, near greats and someday greats.  In my one and only game at Busch II as a youngster, I watched Lou Brock airmail one into the stands on the first base side against the Phillies.

[JimR]

In the GZ last night, the comment was made that only Bourn could've beaten that throw.

yes, he made it reasonably close.

[pots]

bullshit. the throw to third on Bourn was a laser.

Wow, that throw was 20 feet high at the cutoff.  Matsui had an easy decision.  Low liner through the cutoff.  One hop variety.   You're only getting Bourn if he has a bad jump. 

[BudGirl]

Wow, that throw was 20 feet high at the cutoff.  Matsui had an easy decision.  Low liner through the cutoff.  One hop variety.   You're only getting Bourn if he has a bad jump. 

That play was closer than you seem to think.

[sporadic]

Wow, that throw was 20 feet high at the cutoff.  Matsui had an easy decision.  Low liner through the cutoff.  One hop variety.   You're only getting Bourn if he has a bad jump. 

due to the content of this thread I must have been watching the replay of some past game...the throw I saw to 3rd was a fucking rocket.

[sporadic]

...and it was BARELY behind Bourn

[JimR]

Wow, that throw was 20 feet high at the cutoff.  Matsui had an easy decision.  Low liner through the cutoff.  One hop variety.   You're only getting Bourn if he has a bad jump. 

fucking nuts.

[JimR]

...and it was BARELY behind Bourn

fify

[Taras Bulba]

In the GZ last night, the comment was made that only Bourn could've beaten that throw.

La Russa pretty much said the same thing.

[pots]

fucking nuts.

probably

[pravata]

...and it was BARELY behind Bourne

Barely, would have nailed a mortal.

[Limey]

Wow, that throw was 20 feet high at the cutoff.  Matsui had an easy decision.  Low liner through the cutoff.  One hop variety.   You're only getting Bourn if he has a bad jump. 

You're conflating the throw home, which (ironically) sailed all the way to the back stop, with the throw to 3rd trying to get Bourn.  On the latter, the cutoff man wasn't the issue.  If there was a mistake on the throw to 3rd, it was trying to nip Bourn when he's one of the few players in the league who could've even thought about taking a base in that situation.

[hostros7]

probably

Insanity = "doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

Idiocy = commenting the same thing over and over again despite what everyone else on the board is telling you while still smugly believing that your observation is somehow more accurate

Bourn slid hard into the bag at 3rd (nearly overslid it) in order to beat the throw by a small margin.  Bourn is arguably the fastest player in the MLB.  If you put the two together, it is reasonable to conclude that the throw was pretty damn good. 

[MusicMan]

Next up:

Greg Maddux once struck out Jeff Bagwell.  Did Bagwell have poor plate discipline?

[remy]

throw to third was high arching as well

What game were you watching?  That throw was a freaking missile.

[Mr. Happy]

I can't believe that this thread has gone on as long as it has. Coach is right. The throw to 3B was a rocket. Only Bourn could have made it. Ankiel is a stud-he could play CF for me anytime.

[pots]

Well here's the thing.  I've changed my mind, I know unheard of on this forum, on the quality of the throw, but given the shear stupid distance he attempted it from it was no where near capable of being cutoff allowing Matsui the ease of arriving at 2nd.  Only maybe a Mondesi could of made that throw with a lower trajectory.  

Given Bourn clearly beat a perfect throw, it was stupid to throw it.  

[Jacksonian]

Well here's the thing.  I've changed my mind, I know unheard of on this forum, on the quality of the throw, but given the shear stupid distance he attempted it from it was no where near capable of being cutoff allowing Matsui the ease of arriving at 2nd.  Only maybe a Mondesi could of made that throw with a lower trajectory.  

Given Bourn clearly beat a perfect throw, it was stupid to throw it.  

With an arm like his.  In the first inning.  Go for it.  There were 9 innings of at-bats for them and a 0-0 score at the time.  Bourn did beat the throw, but barely.  Just one stumble or a slip tagging up and Bourn is out or doesn't advance.  Bourn had to tag, run, and slide perfectly to beat it.  If he slides past the bag, he's out.  The throw made sense.

[MusicMan]

Given Bourn clearly beat a perfect throw, it was stupid to throw it.  

This is 20/20 hindsight/crap at its worst.

[pots]

With an arm like his.  In the first inning.  Go for it.  There were 9 innings of at-bats for them and a 0-0 score at the time.  Bourn did beat the throw, but barely.  Just one stumble or a slip tagging up and Bourn is out or doesn't advance.  Bourn had to tag, run, and slide perfectly to beat it.  If he slides past the bag, he's out.  The throw made sense.

Now that I'm on board, everybody seems to agree it was a perfect, amazing spactacular, throw that the God of all throwing arms made, and yet it didn't beat him.  Bourn clearly beat it with his patented late slide which he performs all the time and either darn near breaks his ankle or has to catch himself as he slides past.   The throw allows Matsui to take 2nd, nullifying the double play and a chance to get out of the inning (albeit Berkman batting).  How is this the "right" move.  If it's such a low percentage shot, it doesn't make sense to me.

[sporadic]

Now that I'm on board, everybody seems to agree it was a perfect, amazing spactacular, throw that the God of all throwing arms made, and yet it didn't beat him.  Bourn clearly beat it with his patented late slide which he performs all the time and either darn near breaks his ankle or has to catch himself as he slides past.   The throw allows Matsui to take 2nd, nullifying the double play and a chance to get out of the inning (albeit Berkman batting).  How is this the "right" move.  If it's such a low percentage shot, it doesn't make sense to me.

Just ask for a shovel and end the madness

[Limey]

Now that I'm on board, everybody seems to agree it was a perfect, amazing spactacular, throw that the God of all throwing arms made, and yet it didn't beat him.  Bourn clearly beat it with his patented late slide which he performs all the time and either darn near breaks his ankle or has to catch himself as he slides past.   The throw allows Matsui to take 2nd, nullifying the double play and a chance to get out of the inning (albeit Berkman batting).  How is this the "right" move.  If it's such a low percentage shot, it doesn't make sense to me.

Suffering cats!

Ankiel has a very good arm.  Bourn is very fast.  They challenged each other (this is sports, after all) and Bourn came out on top.  This time.  Tomorrow, who knows.  That's why I watch.

[JimR]

You are a fucking idiot. Go away please.

[MusicMan]

Now that I'm on board, everybody seems to agree it was a perfect, amazing spactacular, throw that the God of all throwing arms made, and yet it didn't beat him.  Bourn clearly beat it with his patented late slide which he performs all the time and either darn near breaks his ankle or has to catch himself as he slides past.   The throw allows Matsui to take 2nd, nullifying the double play and a chance to get out of the inning (albeit Berkman batting).  How is this the "right" move.  If it's such a low percentage shot, it doesn't make sense to me.

I'm coming around to your thinking.  I also don't understand why the .093 didn't just press the reset button on his XBox after that 1st inning.  Coming back from 4-0 is a pretty low percentage shot.

[Jacksonian]

Now that I'm on board, everybody seems to agree it was a perfect, amazing spactacular, throw that the God of all throwing arms made, and yet it didn't beat him.  Bourn clearly beat it with his patented late slide which he performs all the time and either darn near breaks his ankle or has to catch himself as he slides past.   The throw allows Matsui to take 2nd, nullifying the double play and a chance to get out of the inning (albeit Berkman batting).  How is this the "right" move.  If it's such a low percentage shot, it doesn't make sense to me.

Because then you can walk Berkman and go after Lee for the DP.  Looper couldn't keep the ball down and paid for it.  Oh and it was the first inning with no score.  The situation allowed for the attempt.

[Limey]

I'm coming around to your thinking.  I also don't understand why the .093 didn't just press the reset button on his XBox after that 1st inning.  Coming back from 4-0 is a pretty low percentage shot.

You're missing the point!  It wouldn't have got to 4-0 if Ankiel had just given up the extra base to Bourn.  That's what being a major leaguer is all about: knowing when you're beaten and not trying.

[pravata]

You're missing the point!  It wouldn't have got to 4-0 if Ankiel had just given up the extra base to Bourn.  That's what being a major leaguer is all about: knowing when you're beaten and not trying.

Ankiel was just trying to be macho.

[Noe]

Well here's the thing.  I've changed my mind, I know unheard of on this forum, on the quality of the throw, but given the shear stupid distance he attempted it from it was no where near capable of being cutoff allowing Matsui the ease of arriving at 2nd.  Only maybe a Mondesi could of made that throw with a lower trajectory. 

Given Bourn clearly beat a perfect throw, it was stupid to throw it. 

The big problem I have is you calling a legit play "stupid".  Why?  Because you don't like Ankiel or the Jakes or LaRussa?  Because none of those reasons are valid to call it "stupid".  Was it stupid because of the outcome?  If so, this is fan-speak bullshit that usually is reserved for Monday morning quarterbacking based solely on outcome and not sound decision making.  Over and over and over again in here we talk about second guessing a manager.

So here is how it works in terms of the difference between "outcome" and "sound decision making":

1. Manager calls for a squeeze play, runner breaks from third, one out.  Hitter pops it up, Pitcher makes the catch, then throws to third to double up the runner.  Stupid play?  Yes, if you judge manager decisions based on "outcome".

2. Manager calls for a squeeze play, runner breaks from third, one out.  Hitter pops it up, Pitcher makes the catch, then throws to third to double up the runner.  Stupid play?  No, if you judge manager decisions based on "decision making process".  See, the runner at third is Michael Bourn, the hitter is Brad Ausmus and the pitcher is hitting behind him.

See the difference?

Had the outcome been that Ankiel throws out Bourn, then it's a great play (for those judging "outcome").  But it was a right play to make in terms of decision making because 1) there are no outs yet, 2) it's early in the game, 3) Ankiel has a rocket for an arm, 4) Bourn has to start from a dead start, meaning he has to tag up, not take a running lead.  You teach guys to take that play if they're the talent of an Ankiel.

Why are you calling it "stupid"?  Because it didn't work?

[Noe]

This is 20/20 hindsight/crap at its worst.

Yup, the type of crap that leads fans to boo players and managers at a ballgame too.  Why?

[Noe]

Ankiel was just trying to be macho.

That's it!  Sorry, I retract everything I thought was right about the play... we all *know* he was just trying to impress the ladies sitting in aisle 312, row 23.  That's why in the second attempt, he threw the ball at them so they could have a souvenir.

[Limey]

The big problem I have is you calling a legit play "stupid".  Why?  Because you don't like Ankiel or the Jakes or LaRussa?  Because none of those reasons are valid to call it "stupid".  Was it stupid because of the outcome?  If so, this is fan-speak bullshit that usually is reserved for Monday morning quarterbacking based solely on outcome and not sound decision making.  Over and over and over again in here we talk about second guessing a manager.

So here is how it works in terms of the difference between "outcome" and "sound decision making":

1. Manager calls for a squeeze play, runner breaks from third, one out.  Hitter pops it up, Pitcher makes the catch, then throws to third to double up the runner.  Stupid play?  Yes, if you judge manager decisions based on "outcome".

2. Manager calls for a squeeze play, runner breaks from third, one out.  Hitter pops it up, Pitcher makes the catch, then throws to third to double up the runner.  Stupid play?  No, if you judge manager decisions based on "decision making process".  See, the runner at third is Michael Bourn, the hitter is Brad Ausmus and the pitcher is hitting behind him.

See the difference?

Had the outcome been that Ankiel throws out Bourn, then it's a great play (for those judging "outcome").  But it was a right play to make in terms of decision making because 1) there are no outs yet, 2) it's early in the game, 3) Ankiel has a rocket for an arm, 4) Bourn has to start from a dead start, meaning he has to tag up, not take a running lead.  You teach guys to take that play if they're the talent of an Ankiel.

Why are you calling it "stupid"?  Because it didn't work?

[Missing YouTube clip of Mac quizzing Billy Heywood on situational management]

[Limey]

Yup, the type of crap that leads fans to boo players and managers at a ballgame too.

See Powell, Ka.

[MusicMan]

That's it!  Sorry, I retract everything I thought was right about the play... we all *know* he was just trying to impress the ladies sitting in aisle 312, row 23.  That's why in the second attempt, he threw the ball at them so they could have a souvenir.

OK, now I question Ankiel's judgement, because those two "ladies" were just nasty.

[Noe]

See Powell, Ka.

*DING, DING, DING*.  Poor KaPowell, his forte was to induce groundballs.  The infield behind him was Lugo and Biggio.  He was a dead man before he stepped on the bump.

[Limey]

OK, now I question Ankiel's judgement, because those two "ladies" were just nasty.

It's St. Louis.  You take what you can get.  They all smell like Craig's arse for starters...

[Noe]

OK, now I question Ankiel's judgement, because those two "ladies" were just nasty.

I'm pretty sure he tried to take home plate last night like Pooholes to show them his sliding skills too.  Too bad JR Towles actually got the ball in time and setup perfectly to twart him.  His coming up the line to meet Ankiel well in front of the bag was a thing of beauty.  Brings a tear to the eye of this old former catcher.

Just. Perfect.

[pravata]

...That's why in the second attempt, he threw the ball at them so they could have a souvenir.

No, that's just the way he throws to home.  It's why he's in center now.

[pots]

Yup, the type of crap that leads fans to boo players and managers at a ballgame too.  Why?

I tried to take Jim's advice, but I refuse to be lumped in with this group.  I called it stupid because I've been taught not to make low percentage chance throws that allow baserunners to advance unless the situation called for the chance.  If the throw was made someone would call it a stupid(meaning not of intelligent thought) throw, because the end not justifying the means type thing.  Jacksonian explained his position that being early in the game waranted the chance being taken.   Others seem to feel that it wasn't low percentage chance because Ankiel was throwing it.  And now I take Jim's advice.  

[Limey]

I'm pretty sure he tried to take home plate last night like Pooholes to show them his sliding skills too.  Too bad JR Towles actually got the ball in time and setup perfectly to twart him.  His coming up the line to meet Ankiel well in front of the bag was a thing of beauty.  Brings a tear to the eye of this old former catcher.

Just. Perfect.

I thought at the time: if that was Pooholes, he takes JR out regardless.  I was happy for JR that it wasn't that sneering fuckface.

[MusicMan]

I had to laugh at Bourn using Pooholes as an air brake last night.

[Noe]

I tried to take Jim's advice, but I refuse to be lumped in with this group.  I called it stupid because I've been taught not to make low percentage chance throws that allow baserunners to advance unless the situation called for the chance.  If the throw was made someone would call it a stupid(meaning not of intelligent thought) throw, because the end not justifying the means type thing.  Jacksonian explained his position that being early in the game waranted the chance being taken.   Others seem to feel that it wasn't low percentage chance because Ankiel was throwing it.  And now I take Jim's advice. 

Weren't you saying things like "a hump in the throw" and such?  I don't understand how you're coming to such conclusions or even if you watched the same throw that anyone else did.  The things you've been saying to justify the vitrol against Ankiel and this play has been head scratchers for sure.  Why is it hard to give Ankiel some props for attempting to save his pitcher who was the one struggling on the mound.  By your logic, then Erstad had no business throwing home on Saturday night because he would allow the go ahead run to advance into scoring position if he doesn't secure an out.  Play it safe, throw to second Darrin or somebody cut it off for goodness sake.  Looper has to pitch better to keep the runners off the bases if we follow your logic too.  IOW - Looper was the stupid one.  Or maybe everyone is stupid because they fail to see the logic of playing baseball the way it should be played in your world.

And by the way, if this is about Jim and that is really what is motivating you to be a dumbass, then leave me and the entire freaking TZ out.  Talk this nonsense with Jim via PM if you'd like, but please stop making a fool of yourself simply because you have a hard on for Jim.  I'm not Jim and neither is anyone else so the remarks about Jim to me are just ill advised and really makes me wonder what really is beneath this whole discussion.

[kevwun]

No, that's just the way he throws to home.  It's why he's in center now.

That's good stuff.

[geezerdonk]

Was it announced why Ludwick didn't play last night? Is he hurt or was it part of some master strategy by Stop Light Tony to cause the Astros to succumb to bewilderment?

[MusicMan]

Ask not the ways of the Tanked One.

[geezerdonk]

Apologies if this has been asked before, but does .093 refer to Granny's BAC? That sounds way low to me.

[Jacksonian]

Jacksonian explained his position that being early in the game waranted the chance being taken.   Others seem to feel that it wasn't low percentage chance because Ankiel was throwing it.    

I believe I also referenced Ankiel's howitzer.  It would have been stupid if it were pretty much anyone else in center.  Too, Ankiel knows full well how strong his arm is and how fast Bourn is.  If that ball were hit to the warning track he would have thrown to 2B.  From his relative position on the field when he caught it he had a pretty good idea he might get Bourn.  Just 5 or 6 feet closer to third, which in the outfield isn't that far, on that catch and Bourn is out by a hair.  Last, even if Ankiel's throw is at the cutoff man there's no guarantee they would have cut it.  As close as that play was whoever makes the call for cutoff, I presume the catcher, may very well have called that throw through to third anyway.

[Limey]

Apologies if this has been asked before, but does .093 refer to Granny's BAC? That sounds way low to me.

Depends on your perspective.  Regardless, it's still .013 over the legal limit.  Plus, I'm not sure that napping in the driver's seat of a car with the engine running at a stop sign is kosher either.

[strosrays]

Ask not the ways of the Tanked One.

Unless you're a BFiB, of course.

[Gizzmonic]

Apologies if this has been asked before, but does .093 refer to Granny's BAC? That sounds way low to me.

Well, that's after he was dozing behind the wheel, arrested, and breathalyzed.  Presumably it was higher when he actually got behind the wheel.

[JimR]

I believe I also referenced Ankiel's howitzer.  It would have been stupid if it were pretty much anyone else in center.  Too, Ankiel knows full well how strong his arm is and how fast Bourn is.  If that ball were hit to the warning track he would have thrown to 2B.  From his relative position on the field when he caught it he had a pretty good idea he might get Bourn.  Just 5 or 6 feet closer to third, which in the outfield isn't that far, on that catch and Bourn is out by a hair.  Last, even if Ankiel's throw is at the cutoff man there's no guarantee they would have cut it.  As close as that play was whoever makes the call for cutoff, I presume the catcher, may very well have called that throw through to third anyway.

the 3B makes the cut/let it go call on a throw to 3rd.

[pravata]

Was it announced why Ludwick didn't play last night? Is he hurt or was it part of some master strategy by Stop Light Tony to cause the Astros to succumb to bewilderment?

righty, lefty says the local paper

"I know Lud is going to play a lot," said La Russa, whose team could face four lefties in the next six games. "He's got more guaranteed playing time than some of the lefthanders, so I don't want them to miss their chance."

Chacon entered Tuesday's game holding righthanded hitters to a .222 average while lefties hit .294 off him... Tuesday was the second time in three games that Ludwick did not start. He is hitting .356 this month with a team high in homers and RBIs.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/3C5DD3F7FF33E9F98625745700106E4D?OpenDocument

[JimR]

righty, lefty says the local paper

"I know Lud is going to play a lot," said La Russa, whose team could face four lefties in the next six games. "He's got more guaranteed playing time than some of the lefthanders, so I don't want them to miss their chance."

Chacon entered Tuesday's game holding righthanded hitters to a .222 average while lefties hit .294 off him... Tuesday was the second time in three games that Ludwick did not start. He is hitting .356 this month with a team high in homers and RBIs.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/3C5DD3F7FF33E9F98625745700106E4D?OpenDocument

never, ever question The Genius. he has a Plan.

[pravata]

never, ever question The Genius. he has a Plan.

So ingenious if it had a tail we'd call it a weazel.  He gets too Terminally Cute with his Plans. 

[Noe]

righty, lefty says the local paper

"I know Lud is going to play a lot," said La Russa, whose team could face four lefties in the next six games. "He's got more guaranteed playing time than some of the lefthanders, so I don't want them to miss their chance."

Chacon entered Tuesday's game holding righthanded hitters to a .222 average while lefties hit .294 off him... Tuesday was the second time in three games that Ludwick did not start. He is hitting .356 this month with a team high in homers and RBIs.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/3C5DD3F7FF33E9F98625745700106E4D?OpenDocument

From the link stros-rays provided (and no, that is not an invitation to go and harass those folks either... they're a good bunch of folks), some believe based on media inkling (Bernie Mlkas who has had run-ins with LaRussa before) that LaRussa sat Ludwick down to show the media he's boss and will damn well play Chris Duncan in spite of the criticism the media has for Duncan's game.  Duncan is also the son of his personal friend and pitching coach Drinkin' Dave Duncan.

I've said it before, will say it again: LaRussa is on a jag this year to prove to his team that they need to play with a chip on their shoulders.  Take nothing from nobody, break legs if you have too (Ahum... maybe he didn't go that far, but juneberno).  It's us against the world, including local media guys like Mlkas it seems.  Reminds me of Dusty's ploy to try and get his troops to rally around that flag too.  Until it all blew up on his face when his guys wanted to fight local writers, broadcasters, opposing pitchers, any one!  They folded like a cheap card table in August because of it too.

[Jacksonian]

the 3B makes the cut/let it go call on a throw to 3rd.

My HS coach had the catcher make the call.  He presumed the 3B was too busy with the throw and runner to know where the other runners were to make the right call.  He presumed that the catcher was the only one with the best view of the field to make the call.

[MusicMan]

Be fair.  Their August fold was minor compared to the September collapse.

[Noe]

My HS coach had the catcher make the call.  He presumed the 3B was too busy with the throw and runner to know where the other runners were to make the right call.  He presumed that the catcher was the only one with the best view of the field to make the call.

Some teams I played on had that rule too... catcher makes all the calls.  But most of the teams I played with, it was the one receiving the throw that would align the cut off man and make the call ("left, left, left, stay... cut!").  It's much less confusing to have to listen to one guy make the alignment call and cut than to listen for two guys.

[Jacksonian]

But most of the teams I played with, it was the one receiving the throw that would align the cut off man and make the call ("left, left, left, stay... cut!").  It's much less confusing to have to listen to one guy make the alignment call and cut than to listen for two guys.

This was exactly how it was played.  Throw-receiver aligned the cutoff man.  Catcher made the call unless the runner was the only player on base.

[JimR]

Some teams I played on had that rule too... catcher makes all the calls.  But most of the teams I played with, it was the one receiving the throw that would align the cut off man and make the call ("left, left, left, stay... cut!").  It's much less confusing to have to listen to one guy make the alignment call and cut than to listen for two guys.

i never played on or coached a team where the catcher made all the calls. he cannot line up the SS for the throw to third. you're very right about confusion. the 3B has the hitter advancing play in front of him and can make that "cut 2" call easily.

[Taras Bulba]

Playing 1B, I cut everything from center and right, with 3B cutting throws from left.  Was that your method?

[JimR]

Playing 1B, I cut everything from center and right, with 3B cutting throws from left.  Was that your method?

yes.

SS covered 3B on throws from LF.

[Noe]

i never played on or coached a team where the catcher made all the calls. he cannot line up the SS for the throw to third. you're very right about confusion. the 3B has the hitter advancing play in front of him and can make that "cut 2" call easily.

It wasn't easy, trust me.  I wasn't a catcher on those teams, I was a CF and then at times played 2nd.  It was confusing, but that is the way the coach wanted us to make the calls.  Had I been the catcher on that team, I probably would've told the coach it wasn't a good idea for me, as catcher, to yell "cut 2!" while the 3rd baseman yelled "left, left, left, stay...".  For most of my days as a player (amatuer) the teams use the receiver to make the calls.

[Limey]

righty, lefty says the local paper

"I know Lud is going to play a lot," said La Russa, whose team could face four lefties in the next six games. "He's got more guaranteed playing time than some of the lefthanders, so I don't want them to miss their chance."

Chacon entered Tuesday's game holding righthanded hitters to a .222 average while lefties hit .294 off him... Tuesday was the second time in three games that Ludwick did not start. He is hitting .356 this month with a team high in homers and RBIs.

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/3C5DD3F7FF33E9F98625745700106E4D?OpenDocument

Of course, that's all lefties, not La Russa's lefties.  Once again he demonstrates his lack of faith in his own players.  No wonder everyone on that club is in a permanent state of PMS.

[rambo2]

With 3 throws Ankiel gave the Astros 4 bases.

[Noe]

With 3 throws Ankiel gave the Astros 4 bases.

The Astros *took* four bases.  You want Ankiel to play scared?  That would be stupid.  Stop the nonsense.

[Limey]

With 3 throws Ankiel gave the Astros 4 bases.

Ankiel made an error on one throw.  Looper gave up 4 hits, a walk and a HBP...in one inning!

[rambo2]

The Astros *took* four bases.  You want Ankiel to play scared?  That would be stupid.  Stop the nonsense.

No, I am ok with him making the bad decisions.

[JimR]

rambo2 to the aid of pots. Quite an FI team.

Ankiel made 1 bad throw and no bad decisions.

[Noe]

No, I am ok with him making the bad decisions.

It's a bad decision to try and get outs for your pitcher?  Maybe the infielder should never throw to first to try and get a runner out... in case they make a bad throw or something.  Hey yeah, they should never throw to second base when trying for a double play because they can throw into the outfield accidently, better to secure the one out at first... that is if you can make a perfect throw 100% of the time and if you can't then think about the consequences young man!

Bad decision?  Give me a freaking break. 

[Noe]

rambo2 to the aid of pots. Quite an FI team.

Ankiel made 1 bad throw and no bad decisions.

There seems to be no concept of "there is no bad decision only indecisive ones".  He who hesitates in baseball is lost.

[Limey]

He who hesitates in baseball is lost.

See also Stops, Four-Way.

[rambo2]

It's a bad decision to try and get outs for your pitcher?  Maybe the infielder should never throw to first to try and get a runner out... in case they make a bad throw or something.  Hey yeah, they should never throw to second base when trying for a double play because they can throw into the outfield accidently, better to secure the one out at first... that is if you can make a perfect throw 100% of the time and if you can't then think about the consequences young man!

Bad decision?  Give me a freaking break. 

Your right Noe, he should go ahead and show off his strong arm by making throws when there is not much of a chance to get the runner and it allows the runners to move up which puts them in scoring position and takes the double play out of order.  That's ok, they can always walk Berkman to get to Lee who happens to be a very good rbi man.  That is a great 1st inning strategy.   

[Duman]

Your right Noe, he should go ahead and show off his strong arm by throws when there is no chance to get the runner and it allows the runners to move up which puts them in scoring position and takes the double play out of order.  That's ok, they can always walk Berkman to get to Lee who happens to be a very good rbi man.  That is a great 1st inning strategy.   

 He threw to 3rd and it was a close play.  Get your facts straight.  That's great posting strategy.

[rambo2]

He threw to 3rd and it was a close play.  Get your facts straight.  That's great posting strategy.

I was actually ok with the throw to third.  The 2 throws home were bad decisions. 

[JimR]

STFU, rambo. Idiot

[Duman]

I was actually ok with the throw to third.  The 2 throws home were bad decisions. 

I think your post was a bad decision.

[rambo2]

STFU, rambo. Idiot

Fuck you, you arrogant bastard.  Why don't call Jimmy D and Bill Brown?  They agree with me and they were there.  Fuck all of you arrogant bastards.  Talk about idiots.  Give me a fucking break.  Jim you are one sorry sob.  You must of had a sad life to make you such an ass hole.

[rambo2]

I think your post was a bad decision.

I think your parents made a bad decision.  Go screw yourself.

[Noe]

Your right Noe, he should go ahead and show off his strong arm by making throws when there is not much of a chance to get the runner and it allows the runners to move up which puts them in scoring position and takes the double play out of order.  That's ok, they can always walk Berkman to get to Lee who happens to be a very good rbi man.  That is a great 1st inning strategy.   

A couple of things:

1. He has an arm and threw out a guy in Colorado who was a speedy runner (Spillbourgh) in a very similar play already.  So you tell me, was he working from experience that it can be done by him?

2. He does have a strong arm, so his decision making process is that he can make that play while others cannot.  So he's not being stupid or macho or anything I've heard from you and others so far.  He's being what he's supposed to be for LaRussa's team, a CF that throw guys out.

3. Not much of a chance?  He almost threw Bourn out... if that is the case, then a shortstop shouldn't try to throw Bourn out at first because the chances are not in their favor to throw him out there either. 

4. Ankiel is not the pitcher nor responsible for the pitcher's performance.  That he can't get Lee out is on Looper, not Ankiel.  To ascribe to him the responsibility of keeping the pitcher from doing his job is a little beyond scope.

5. You really don't know much about baseball, do you?  You ever coach kids or teenagers to play the game?  If your CF were to throw out a guy at third in a similar situation, would you scream out "HEY, THAT IS A BAD IDEA!!!" or react to whether he made the out or not?  Or would you tell him "Nice try, keep your head up, you'll get the next guy".  See this isn't like a brain fart as you seem to be making it, a horrible mistake.  It was a challenge, a risk that he took and it's about trying to help your team, not purposely put Looper in a hole.  If that is what you think, then Ankiel should never leave his feet to try and catch a ball for fear that he'll let a ball roll behind him and make his pitcher have to pitch out of a jam.  Same goes for an infielder never diving for a ball, or laying out to grab a ball screaming by... never try to make a play, instead play it safe, take the non-competitive route.

And then see how long you're going to play in the mlb after that.  Not long.

[Noe]

I was actually ok with the throw to third.  The 2 throws home were bad decisions. 

You can't distinguish between "bad throws" and "Bad decisions".  Try again.

[Noe]

Fuck you, you arrogant bastard.  Why don't call Jimmy D and Bill Brown?  They agree with me and they were there.  Fuck all of you arrogant bastards.  Talk about idiots.  Give me a fucking break.  Jim you are one sorry sob.  You must of had a sad life to make you such an ass hole.

Wait a minute here, Jimmy D and Brownie talked *only* about the throw to third to get Bourn, a play you already said you were "okay" with.  Are you now changing your tune?

[Noe]

I think your parents made a bad decision.  Go screw yourself.

I'm not sure Duman deserved that.  In fact, he didn't.  If you're unhappy here, then leave.  Say the word and I'll make it happen.

[Duman]

I think your parents made a bad decision.  Go screw yourself.

You got your facts wrong in your post.  Go back and read it.

I pointed it out, you changed your stance but didn't correct the incorrect facts that was in your post.  That was that the throw that took the DP out of play and led to the walk of Berkman was a throw to 3rd not home. 

You still can't deal with facts in your post so you start getting personal.

Rick Ankiel doesn't think he made a bad decision,  his manager probably doesn't either.  An BTW, my parents are pretty happy with their decision to.

[JimR]

Fuck you, you arrogant bastard.  Why don't call Jimmy D and Bill Brown?  They agree with me and they were there.  Fuck all of you arrogant bastards.  Talk about idiots.  Give me a fucking break.  Jim you are one sorry sob.  You must of had a sad life to make you such an ass hole.

a true fucking idiot, you. post idiocy. get blasted by one and all. numerous folks point out factual errors. change your facts. defend stupidity desperately. attack one and all.

now, STFU. take Noe up on his offer, and go the hell away.

nope, pretty good life so far. some successes. some reversals. all in all, i'm satisfied and very happy to tell you to fuck off.

bye, bye.

[remy]

I love the smell of napalm in the morning.

[sporadic]

a true fucking idiot, you. post idiocy. get blasted by one and all. numerous folks point out factual errors. change your facts. defend stupidity desperately. attack one and all.

now, STFU. take Noe up on his offer, and go the hell away.

nope, pretty good life so far. some successes. some reversals. all in all, i'm satisfied and very happy to tell you to fuck off.

bye, bye.

No, No, No....this is not the way to settle this Jim.  If you REALLY want to put Rambo in his place you have to start talking bad about his mother.

[JimR]

Which one in that pack of wolves was she?

[rpntex]

With an arm like his.  In the first inning.  Go for it.  There were 9 innings of at-bats for them and a 0-0 score at the time.  Bourn did beat the throw, but barely.  Just one stumble or a slip tagging up and Bourn is out or doesn't advance.  Bourn had to tag, run, and slide perfectly to beat it.  If he slides past the bag, he's out.  The throw made sense.

I understand your reasoning, but I tend to disagree from the standpoint of staying away from the big inning early on.  If that throw is cut off, holding Matsui at first, then the DP's still set up, with a hitter that tends to hit into a few of them.  Concede the run for the DP.  I see that as better than getting hit with a big inning, especially early on. 

It falls upon Ankiel to put the ball in a position to be cut off.  If he does, I have no problem with the decision to throw to third.

[BUWebguy]

Rick Ankiel doesn't think he made a bad decision,  his manager probably doesn't either.  An BTW, my parents are pretty happy with their decision to.

Wait wait wait... Are you calling LaRussa to the stand in your defense?

[ValpoCory]

I understand your reasoning, but I tend to disagree from the standpoint of staying away from the big inning early on.  If that throw is cut off, holding Matsui at first, then the DP's still set up, with a hitter that tends to hit into a few of them.  Concede the run for the DP.

Had the Redbirds turned a DP on Berkman, the inning would have been over. No run conceding necessary.

[Ty in Tampa]

I understand your reasoning, but I tend to disagree from the standpoint of staying away from the big inning early on.  If that throw is cut off, holding Matsui at first, then the DP's still set up, with a hitter that tends to hit into a few of them.  Concede the run for the DP.  I see that as better than getting hit with a big inning, especially early on. 

It falls upon Ankiel to put the ball in a position to be cut off.  If he does, I have no problem with the decision to throw to third.

Fine. Now do we really have to go over all this again?

[JimR]

I understand your reasoning, but I tend to disagree from the standpoint of staying away from the big inning early on.  If that throw is cut off, holding Matsui at first, then the DP's still set up, with a hitter that tends to hit into a few of them.  Concede the run for the DP.  I see that as better than getting hit with a big inning, especially early on. 

It falls upon Ankiel to put the ball in a position to be cut off.  If he does, I have no problem with the decision to throw to third.

i am so fucking glad you have no problem with what a MLB CF did. that is most comforting.

[MusicMan]

If that throw is cut off, holding Matsui at first, then the DP's still set up, with a hitter that tends to hit into a few of them.  Concede the run for the DP. 

1.  The play was bang-bang.  No player would have made the call to cut off the throw.
2.  Berkman is a helluva lot more likely to get a SF than a DP, so you go for the guy at third.

[Jacksonian]

1.  The play was bang-bang.  No player would have made the call to cut off the throw.
2.  Berkman is a helluva lot more likely to get a SF than a DP, so you go for the guy at third.

That and IIRC as Noe said you can't excuse Looper.  He had Lee up with the bases loaded and couldn't get the ball down.  Do what Perez did last night and the inning ends with no runs scored.

[Limey]

That and IIRC as Noe said you can't excuse Looper.  He had Lee up with the bases loaded and couldn't get the ball down.  Do what Perez did last night and the inning ends with no runs scored.

Just to recap what I posted up the thread:  Looper's first inning involved 4 hits, 1 walk and 1 HBP.

[Noe]

That and IIRC as Noe said you can't excuse Looper.  He had Lee up with the bases loaded and couldn't get the ball down.  Do what Perez did last night and the inning ends with no runs scored.

And also some Houston fans apparently have very short memories or hate this team so much, they cannot bring themselves to give credit to Lee for getting the job done.  No, it's not that Lee did great, it's that Ankiel screwed up!  Yeah, see... we *CAN'T* say anything positive and no way am I going to give credit to the Houston Astros... I'm going to blame it on the opposition for giving them those runs.

Just several years ago, Phil Garner would pull his hair out seeing a man on third and second, one out and Morgan Ensberg, Jason Lane, Preston Wilson... anyone in the five, six and seventh hole would fail to drive the run in.  Garner would call it poor execution on the team's part.  Houston fans would rail over and over again about how poorly the Astros would do in these situations.  Had Ankiel done the same thing two years ago, every single Astros fan would be praising him for a great job because the Astros aren't going to score runs on those plays any way... not these lousy Astros!

Now the Astros have the makings of one of the best lineups in the entire NL and maybe MLB and the fans decide it's not about the Astros being good at driving in four runs... it's about the opposition giving them bases, making bad decisions and that is the reason the Astros are doing well.

Damn, I hate those kind of fans... really do.  Have to find the wrong things in life instead of enjoying baseball for the fun game it is, win or lose.

[TheWizard]

Damn, I hate those kind of fans... really do.  Have to find the wrong things in life instead of enjoying baseball for the fun game it is, win or lose.

Exactly...  its just a game, albiet the fact these guys get paid millions to do it.

[pravata]

Exactly...  its just a game, albiet the fact these guys get paid millions to do it.

It's a $6 billion industry, how does that make it anything other than a game?  It's entertainment that means nothing more than what you see on the field.

[TheWizard]

It's entertainment that means nothing more than what you see on the field.

Or on the message boards.

[pravata]

Or on the message boards.

No, this means much less than that.

[TheWizard]

No, this means much less than that.

You mean keeping SnS alive doesn't make you guys millionaires?

[Noe]

Exactly...  its just a game, albiet the fact these guys get paid millions to do it.

This has become the norm for so-called baseball fans in the last decade or so.  It's about saying a player or team "sucks" at all times, not about enjoying the game.  Now mind you, I'm not saying to go around and do the opposite extreme of "they rule!" either.  You can talk about a players bad performance (ie: everyone already said that Ankiel made a *bad* throw, but that wasn't good enough... he has to be "stupid" or "made bad decisions"... that's more in line with "he sucks!") and you can talk about players great performances too, like Erstad's throw Saturday night for example (which would be a far cry from "Erstad will win the MVP this year! Woo-Hoo!!!". 

There seems to be no balance, no objectivity for these sort of fans... they have to be negative on the scale of really being annoying or positive on the same scale of annoyance but to the other extreme.  Why?  I dunno, it's just in them to be so.  This entire thread started with that express purpose.  It was one fan trying to be first in line to denounce a player (and by proxy give absolutely no credit to the Astros for being a good offensive team) and go the route of "he sucks!!!!" and then thinking he would find a whole bunch of folks who would (as most message boards would) join in.

This is not the right place for that, not that this is a better place... it's a different place, so if anyone is looking for that sort of thing from a fansite, may as well let them know now it's not about "U Suck!" or "U Rool!" each and every thread.  It's about understanding baseball and talking baseball beyond that level... again, not about being better... but we are different, so if a person doesn't want that sort of thing, don't hurt yourself... please leave.

[pravata]

I disagree.  This is better.

[MusicMan]

This is not the right place for that, not that this is a better place... it's a different place, so if anyone is looking for that sort of thing from a fansite, may as well let them know now it's not about "U Suck!" or "U Rool!" each and every thread. 

A deep, meaningful conversation is not necessarily better than getting punched in the junk... it's just different.

[JackAstro]

It's a $6 billion industry, how does that make it anything other than a game?  It's entertainment that means nothing more than what you see on the field.

No, it's a metaphorical allegory, ripe with the subtext of innocence and nostalgia. A morality play in which the spirit of a nation is framed in the context of history, and flanked by the mythology of a bygone era, with unicorns and centaurs and the such. It is so much more than a game. It is the launching pad for a thousand melodramatic missives, consisting of baffling, lyrical prose that thinly veils the desperate need to elevate a simple game to wait, what the fuck were we talking about?

[MusicMan]

No, it's a metaphorical allegory, ripe with the subtext of innocence and nostalgia. A morality play in which the spirit of a nation is framed in the context of history, and flanked by the mythology of a bygone era, with unicorns and centaurs and the such. It is so much more than a game. It is the launching pad for a thousand melodramatic missives, consisting of baffling, lyrical prose that thinly veils the desperate need to elevate a simple game to wait, what the fuck were we talking about?

You have mistaken baseball for "Sex and the City: The Movie".

[TheWizard]

No, it's a metaphorical allegory, ripe with the subtext of innocence and nostalgia. A morality play in which the spirit of a nation is framed in the context of history, and flanked by the mythology of a bygone era, with unicorns and centaurs and the such. It is so much more than a game. It is the launching pad for a thousand melodramatic missives, consisting of baffling, lyrical prose that thinly veils the desperate need to elevate a simple game to wait, what the fuck were we talking about?

This thread has gone from attemping to bash Ankiel to showering him with man love to a commentary on the finer points of enjoying baseball.  What an epic thread.  All started by a guy who goes by Rambo.  The internet is a beautiful thing.

[MusicMan]

This thread has gone from attemping to bash Ankiel to showering him with man love to a commentary on the finer points of enjoying baseball.  What an epic thread.  All started by a guy who goes by Rambo.  The internet is a beautiful thing.

It hasn't yet been compared to Hitler.  The circle is not yet complete.

[austro]

It hasn't yet been compared to Hitler.  The circle is not yet complete.

Well, Hitler definitely wouldn't have thrown to third. He was far too calculating to take a risk like that.

[MusicMan]

Hitler almost had the Russians at Stalingrad.  It was a worthwhile risk.

[geezerdonk]

One more post in this thread and the terrorists win.

[Taras Bulba]

It hasn't yet been compared to Hitler.  The circle is not yet complete.

And if you disagree with MM then you, sir, are worse than Hitler.

[pravata]

No, it's a metaphorical allegory, ripe with the subtext of innocence and nostalgia. A morality play in which the spirit of a nation is framed in the context of history, and flanked by the mythology of a bygone era, with unicorns and centaurs and the such. It is so much more than a game. It is the launching pad for a thousand melodramatic missives, consisting of baffling, lyrical prose that thinly veils the desperate need to elevate a simple game to wait, what the fuck were we talking about?

It's the rhythm of summer.  A pastime so ingrained in the American psyche that we rearrange the country's laws to accomodate the paragons who perserve it for us.  It's 3 hours that gives meaning to a summer day.  It's a Dad spending time with his son, it's a father reconnecting with his grandfather, it's a long distance call with your mother as she asks, "now who is that sitting in the front row right behind home plate?"  It's a platform for skinny, uncoordinated neebishes who couldn't field a grounder to lecture the general population on sport.  It's the Star Spangled banner, God Bless America, and Take Me Out to the Ballgame, it's hot dogs, and beer, and peanuts, and a fucking hanging curve on a 3-2 count, "JEEZUSS H!"

[pravata]

You have mistaken baseball for "Sex and the City: The Movie".

the women who made that movie got paid millions, so it has to have a deeper meaning.

[JackAstro]

It's the rhythm of summer.  A pastime so ingrained in the American psyche that we rearrange the country's laws to accomodate the paragons who perserve it for us.  It's 3 hours that gives meaning to a summer day.  It's a Dad spending time with his son, it's a father reconnecting with his grandfather, it's a long distance call with your mother as she asks, "now who is that sitting in the front row right behind home plate?"  It's a platform for skinny, uncoordinated neebishes who couldn't field a grounder to lecture the general population on sport.  It's the Star Spangled banner, God Bless America, and Take Me Out to the Ballgame, it's hot dogs, and beer, and peanuts, and a fucking hanging curve on a 3-2 count, "JEEZUSS H!"

I can field grounders just fine, thank you very much.

[Phil_in_CS]

Hitler almost had the Russians at Stalingrad.  It was a worthwhile risk.

See what happens when you take a risk and fail? He should have come to a settlement with Stalin so he could maintain his other borders. We proved this countless times with Avalon Hill board games while I was in high school.

[austro]

One more post in this thread and the terrorists win.

But think of the children!

[pots]

Wow, for a group of people(not everyone uses) who drop the f bomb like it was water, you pick the word stupid as a thresh hold.  
When describing anything other then a person it simply means ill-advised.  It is considered rude to describe a person as stupid but not a thing or action.  I never used it as a description of Ankiel.  

Well here's the thing.  I've changed my mind, I know unheard of on this forum, on the quality of the throw, but given the shear stupid distance he attempted it from it was no where near capable of being cutoff allowing Matsui the ease of arriving at 2nd.  Only maybe a Mondesi could of made that throw with a lower trajectory.  

Given Bourn clearly beat a perfect throw, it was stupid to throw it.  

Here is a Noe friendly version:

Well here's the thing.  I've changed my mind, I know unheard of on this forum, on the quality of the throw, but given the shear ill-advised distance he attempted it from it was no where near capable of being cutoff allowing Matsui the ease of arriving at 2nd.  Only maybe a Mondesi could of made that throw with a lower trajectory.  

Given Bourn clearly beat a perfect throw, it was ill-advised to throw it.  

Everyone will take his own stand.  
As an outfielder I enjoy watching arms nail people from the outfield.  
But given the lightning fast speed at second and where the ball was hit to,
the small chance you are able to get Bourn at third doesn't seem worth allowing Matsui to take second, IMO.  
Given a poker scenario, play that hand 100 times and I imagine it would payoff more keeping Matsui at first.  
Hey but every now and then you'll fill the inside straight!

[Noe]

Wow, for a group of people(not everyone uses) who drop the f bomb like it was water, you pick the word stupid as a thresh hold. 
When describing anything other then a person it simply means ill-advised.  It is considered rude to describe a person as stupid but not a thing or action.  I never used it as a description of Ankiel. 

Here is a Noe friendly version:

Everyone will take his own stand. 
As an outfielder I enjoy watching arms nail people from the outfield. 
But given the lightning fast speed at second and where the ball was hit to,
the small chance you are able to get Bourn at third doesn't seem worth allowing Matsui to take second, IMO. 
Given a poker scenario, play that hand 100 times and I imagine it would payoff more keeping Matsui at first. 
Hey but every now and then you'll fill the inside straight!

Are you talking to me?

[ybbodeus]

Are you talking to me?

You're not about to go Travis Bickle here, are you?  Cause if so, MusicMan's Hitler mention might have to get amended ever so slightly.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075314/

[Noe]

You're not about to go Travis Bickle here, are you?  Cause if so, MusicMan's Hitler mention might have to get amended ever so slightly.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0075314/

No, actually there is no malice in my question, only confusion as to what pots is saying.  Is it directed at me?  If so, I can defend what I said if he'd like me to.  If it's general rambling, then I don't really understand what he's saying and would rather pass on it.

[JimR]

Wow, for a group of people(not everyone uses) who drop the f bomb like it was water, you pick the word stupid as a thresh hold.  
When describing anything other then a person it simply means ill-advised.  It is considered rude to describe a person as stupid but not a thing or action.  I never used it as a description of Ankiel.  

Here is a Noe friendly version:

Everyone will take his own stand.  
As an outfielder I enjoy watching arms nail people from the outfield.  
But given the lightning fast speed at second and where the ball was hit to,
the small chance you are able to get Bourn at third doesn't seem worth allowing Matsui to take second, IMO.  
Given a poker scenario, play that hand 100 times and I imagine it would payoff more keeping Matsui at first.  
Hey but every now and then you'll fill the inside straight!

are you starting this all over again? stop it. there are no more words left to be said. you clearly do not understand.

[Arky Vaughan]

You mean keeping SnS alive doesn't make you guys millionaires?

Depends on which currency you're referring to.

[Noe]

Wow, for a group of people(not everyone uses) who drop the f bomb like it was water, you pick the word stupid as a thresh hold. 
When describing anything other then a person it simply means ill-advised.  It is considered rude to describe a person as stupid but not a thing or action.  I never used it as a description of Ankiel. 

Here is a Noe friendly version:

Everyone will take his own stand. 
As an outfielder I enjoy watching arms nail people from the outfield. 
But given the lightning fast speed at second and where the ball was hit to,
the small chance you are able to get Bourn at third doesn't seem worth allowing Matsui to take second, IMO. 
Given a poker scenario, play that hand 100 times and I imagine it would payoff more keeping Matsui at first. 
Hey but every now and then you'll fill the inside straight!

Just in case you were talking to me, when I used the word "stupid" in my missive, I wasn't pointing at you at all.  Not your opinion, not your position on Ankiel... nada.  I was using it in a generic sense to speak of fans who tend to fall into a pessimistic category.  You shouldn't place a spotlight on yourself (again) when it was totally unnecessary to defend yourself again.  I thought you were sincere in what you said in the PM to me, so why would I want to dredge you up in a point that has absolutely nothing to do with you?

But if you still feel you have to continue this for a singular reason, then let me know and I will 1) defend what I said and 2) point out the fallacy in your last few points for you.

Let me know.

[MRaup]

Wow, for a group of people(not everyone uses) who drop the f bomb like it was water, you pick the word stupid as a thresh hold.  
When describing anything other then a person it simply means ill-advised.  It is considered rude to describe a person as stupid but not a thing or action.  I never used it as a description of Ankiel.  

Here is a Noe friendly version:

Everyone will take his own stand.  
As an outfielder I enjoy watching arms nail people from the outfield.  
But given the lightning fast speed at second and where the ball was hit to,
the small chance you are able to get Bourn at third doesn't seem worth allowing Matsui to take second, IMO.  
Given a poker scenario, play that hand 100 times and I imagine it would payoff more keeping Matsui at first.  
Hey but every now and then you'll fill the inside straight!

How's the view from that corner you've continually painted yourself in to?

[JimR]

Wow, for a group of people(not everyone uses) who drop the f bomb like it was water, you pick the word stupid as a thresh hold.  
When describing anything other then a person it simply means ill-advised.  It is considered rude to describe a person as stupid but not a thing or action.  I never used it as a description of Ankiel.  

Here is a Noe friendly version:

Everyone will take his own stand.  
As an outfielder I enjoy watching arms nail people from the outfield.  
But given the lightning fast speed at second and where the ball was hit to,
the small chance you are able to get Bourn at third doesn't seem worth allowing Matsui to take second, IMO.  
Given a poker scenario, play that hand 100 times and I imagine it would payoff more keeping Matsui at first.  
Hey but every now and then you'll fill the inside straight!

you do know, don't you--any good HS player does--that a CF does not have to choose between throwing to 3rd and keeping the hitter at 1st? it is NOT either-or.

[Noe]

you do know, don't you--any good HS player does--that a CF does not have to choose between throwing to 3rd and keeping the hitter at 1st? it is NOT either-or.

Yup, faulty assumption numero uno.  There is more in there that hopefully he can reconcile on his own to see where he's working on some shaky ground.  Not that Ankiel did not take a risk, he did.  Not that it did not turn into a mistake per se, it did (re: Braden Looper couldn't control the first inning regardless, so he is the one with the mistake in all cases).  But it was never a bad play nor a stupid one.  It was a play he chose to make and it didn't work.

[JimR]

Yup, faulty assumption numero uno.  There is more in there that hopefully he can reconcile on his own to see where he's working on some shaky ground.  Not that Ankiel did not take a risk, he did.  Not that it did not turn into a mistake per se, it did.  But it was never a bad play nor a stupid one.  It was a play he chose to make and it didn't work.

in large part b/c the 3B chose to let the throw go through. Ankiel's job is to throw through the cutoff man to 3rd. after he releases the ball, someone else decides whether to try for Bourn or to cut and try for Matsui.

[Taras Bulba]

This thread contains some of the most egregious Ankiel biting I've seen in the talkzone.

[JimR]

This thread contains some of the most egregious Ankiel biting I've seen in the talkzone.

a shameless--but good--bid for POTW.

[Limey]

in large part b/c the 3B chose to let the throw go through. Ankiel's job is to throw through the cutoff man to 3rd. after he releases the ball, someone else decides whether to try for Bourn or to cut and try for Matsui.

Hitler was allied with Hirohito, so Ankiel would never decide to go for Matsui.

[Noe]

in large part b/c the 3B chose to let the throw go through. Ankiel's job is to throw through the cutoff man to 3rd. after he releases the ball, someone else decides whether to try for Bourn or to cut and try for Matsui.

Yup.  Assumption numero dos Coach: there is a direct correlation between man on second and third to the Astros having a four run inning.  Hence it was a stupid play.  (that relationship was brought up by a different poster though, not pots).  So how does one deal with this assumption?

Well, one would have to assume again that if Matsui was at first and Bourn was at second as a result of Ankiel throwing to second base, then Looper would have a better time of limiting the damage with one out.  How so?  I dunno, see I don't get that correlation other than it sets up the double play with Puma at bat, this month's top hitter and overall NL offensive stat leader in many categories.  So you have to work hard to assume that what Looper had in him with a man on third and first with one out was a high probability of a SAC FLY from Puma (1 run, two out) or a GIDP (no runs, end of inning) simply because Ankiel did not try to throw a man out at third with his cannon.  Change that to a man on third and second, and you know then Looper has no chance and will fall apart.  You have to know that... so you must know that Looper only functions well in a man on third/first scenario than a man on third/second scenario.  Ankiel should know Looper's tendencies by now.

That is how you can literally say Ankiel made a "stupid" choice, did he not know that Looper had a SAC FLY or GIDP in him only if he had thrown to second base instead?  Oh, and Matsui would not attempt to steal second base because he did not want to take the bat out of Puma's hands too, so no, Matsui would never be aggressively trying to steal on Looper and Molina.  You have to assume that to make the great pronouncement of a turrible decision by Ankiel on trying to get a runner at third base.  Also, Tony LaRussa would never consider pitching carefully to Puma in the first inning either, he'd allow Looper to challenge him and get out unscathed.  The very idea of an Intentional walk *only* comes into play if the first base is empty.

And you cannot entertain the very notion that had Ankiel been successful, Matsui is at second base, they walk Puma and pitch to Lee with two outs and only one runner in scoring position.  No, you cannot even remotely entertain that success might of happened for the young man with the cannon arm.  No more than you can even remotely entertain the idea that Erstad can throw out a runner at home to end a game too.

[MusicMan]

Dumber decision:

Ankiel throwing to 3b, or Rachael Ray's "terrorist scarf"?

[Astroholic]

Yup.  Assumption numero dos Coach: there is a direct correlation between man on second and third to the Astros having a four run inning.  Hence it was a stupid play.  (that relationship was brought up by a different poster though, not pots).  So how does one deal with this assumption?

Well, one would have to assume again that if Matsui was at first and Bourn was at second as a result of Ankiel throwing to second base, then Looper would have a better time of limiting the damage with one out.  How so?  I dunno, see I don't get that correlation other than it sets up the double play with Puma at bat, this month's top hitter and overall NL offensive stat leader in many categories.  So you have to work hard to assume that what Looper had in him with a man on third and first with one out was a high probability of a SAC FLY from Puma (1 run, two out) or a GIDP (no runs, end of inning) simply because Ankiel did not try to throw a man out at third with his cannon.

That is how you can literally say Ankiel made a "stupid" choice, did he not know that Looper had a SAC FLY or GIDP in him only if he had thrown to second base instead?  Oh, and Matsui would not attempt to steal second base because he did not want to take the bat out of Puma's hands too, so no, Matsui would never be aggressively trying to steal on Looper and Molina.  You have to assume that to make the great pronouncement of a turrible decision by Ankiel on trying to get a runner at third base.  Also, Tony LaRussa would never consider pitching carefully to Puma in the first inning either, he'd allow Looper to challenge him and get out unscathed.  The very idea of an Intentional walk *only* comes into play if the first base is empty.

It would take a bagwellian player to cipher all of that in a split second.

[Limey]

Dumber decision:

Ankiel throwing to 3b, or Rachael Ray's "terrorist scarf"?

Easily the terrorist scarf.  Wearing the same headgear as Islamic extremists is always a bad idea.

[Taras Bulba]

Dumber decision:

Ankiel throwing to 3b, or Rachael Ray's "terrorist scarf"?

Rachael Ray always hits on the cutoff man.

[MusicMan]

Unfortunately, she's been missing the buffet cutoff lately.

(Exits quickly to avoid the wrath of HH...)

[Noe]

Last assumption: Puma, Lee and Pence do not function well with only one man in scoring position.  That is why Ankiel must throw to second and keep Matsui at first.  First base has magical powers over Berkman, Lee and Pence's driving in runs ability.

[VirtualBob]

See what happens when you take a risk and fail? He should have come to a settlement with Stalin so he could maintain his other borders. We proved this countless times with Avalon Hill board games while I was in high school.

AH Rules!!

[Duman]

[sings repeatedly]This is the thread that never ends.[End Sings repeatedly]

[Andyzipp]

[sings repeatedly]This is the thread that never ends.[End Sings repeatedly]

Let's gather round the campfire
and sing our campfire song
Our C A M P F I R E S O N G song
And if you don't think that we can sing it faster
then you're wrong
But it'll help if you just sing along

[pots]

Just in case you were talking to me, when I used the word "stupid" in my missive, I wasn't pointing at you at all.  Not your opinion, not your position on Ankiel... nada.  I was using it in a generic sense to speak of fans who tend to fall into a pessimistic category.  You shouldn't place a spotlight on yourself (again) when it was totally unnecessary to defend yourself again.  I thought you were sincere in what you said in the PM to me, so why would I want to dredge you up in a point that has absolutely nothing to do with you?

But if you still feel you have to continue this for a singular reason, then let me know and I will 1) defend what I said and 2) point out the fallacy in your last few points for you.

Let me know.

Nope sorry no need to continue, my bad again.  I had reread the debacle from yesterday and thought that my use of the word stupid was taking the wrong way.  And then my stupid wanting to explain what I feel is misinterpreted has caused me to go back on what I felt was the best action yesterday.  And here I am again in yet another fucking wanting to right a ship that sunk already.  I need help.

[geezerdonk]

This thread contains some of the most egregious Ankiel biting I've seen in the talkzone.

It's grabbing, not biting.

[VirtualBob]

 I need help.

Free advice:  put the shovel down.

[Lurch]

Nope sorry no need to continue, my bad again.  I had reread the debacle from yesterday and thought that my use of the word stupid was taking the wrong way.  And then my stupid wanting to explain what I feel is misinterpreted has caused me to go back on what I felt was the best action yesterday.  And here I am again in yet another fucking wanting to right a ship that sunk already.  I need help.

Pots: "Hello, My name is Pots and I've been repeating for two days."
All: "Hiiii, Pots"
Moderator: "Welcome to Repeaters Anonymous"
Pots: "Hello, My name is Pots and I've been repeating for two days."
All: "Hiiii, Pots"
Moderator: "Welcome to Repeaters Anonymous"
Pots: "Hello, My name is Pots and I've been repeating for two days."
All: "Hiiii, Pots"
Moderator: "Welcome to Repeaters Anonymous"

[Noe]

Nope sorry no need to continue, my bad again.  I had reread the debacle from yesterday and thought that my use of the word stupid was taking the wrong way.  And then my stupid wanting to explain what I feel is misinterpreted has caused me to go back on what I felt was the best action yesterday.  And here I am again in yet another fucking wanting to right a ship that sunk already.  I need help.

Really, it was directed at someone else entirely but I can see where the use of "stupid" pushed a trigger.  My bad.  Most of what I wrote in terms of assumption was still aimed at those who feel they must not give due to the Astros, they must find the negative to focus on because that is the way baseball is viewed now.

I don't get it, never will either.

There is a huge want to turn every fansite by these types of fans into a huge "We Rool!" or "They Suck!" palooza and I personally can't stand that.  This place will never be that way.  Not as long as we can all establish the parameters for talking baseball correctly.  If it takes being a tad bit rude at times, so be it.   But trust me, all we all want is to rise a tad above the "They Suck" or "We Rool" crowd, else we have no business being here.  We can just join the existing crowds that already exist and enjoy the heck out of baseball in those levels.

I'd probably not join though.  I think I'd just take up finger painting instead.

[MusicMan]

POTW voting is now closed.  Lurch wins.

[VirtualBob]

... If it takes being a tad bit rude at times, so be it. ...  

See ... That's the thing.  These people don't get "a tad bit rude".  They only get "whack 'em up the side of the head from multiple sources rude".  It's like trying to get rid of nut grass in your yard.  Very persistent.

[Noe]

See ... That's the thing.  These people don't get "a tad bit rude".  They only get "whack 'em up the side of the head from multiple sources rude".  It's like trying to get rid of nut grass in your yard.  Very persistent.

I know, been whacked here myself... everyone has.  No one understands that only those who "get it" will survive. 

[Andyzipp]

Really, it was directed at someone else entirely but I can see where the use of "stupid" pushed a trigger.  My bad.  Most of what I wrote in terms of assumption was still aimed at those who feel they must not give due to the Astros, they must find the negative to focus on because that is the way baseball is viewed now.

I don't get it, never will either.

There is a huge want to turn every fansite by these types of fans into a huge "We Rool!" or "They Suck!" palooza and I personally can't stand that.  This place will never be that way.  Not as long as we can all establish the parameters for talking baseball correctly.  If it takes being a tad bit rude at times, so be it.   But trust me, all we all want is to rise a tad above the "They Suck" or "We Rool" crowd, else we have no business being here.  We can just join the existing crowds that already exist and enjoy the heck out of baseball in those levels.

I'd probably not join though.  I think I'd just take up finger painting instead.

Noé, do you suck or rool?

[VirtualBob]

Noé, do you suck or rool?

Hint ... the only right answer for any of us is "yes".

[Andyzipp]

Hint ... the only right answer for any of us is "yes".

There are only two kinds of people in the world...those that suck and those that don't.  It's the only difference we need to celebrating.

[MusicMan]

What about those that switch from suck to blow?

[Andyzipp]

What about those that switch from suck to blow?

If they continue to suck while they blow, then you have your answer.

Also, if one sucks once, they are likely to suck again.

[Noe]

Noé, do you suck or rool?

I used to rool, but that was when I had braces.

[Andyzipp]

I used to rool, but that was when I had braces.

Point of order, but the correct joke is as follows:

I used to rool, but that was when I had races.

[Noe]

Point of order, but the correct joke is as follows:

I used to rool, but that was when I had races.

Yeah, and then you wait for the laughter to die down and you go with...

"now I just suck!"

(Stand-up Comedy 101)

[das]

the 3B makes the cut/let it go call on a throw to 3rd.

I'm showwing my rear here but how does that happen in a game situation?  3b is on the bag, 90+ feet away from the cutoff man standing just beyond 2b in the shallow outfield, the crowd is screaming, how is the 3b call ever heard?

[Noe]

I'm showwing my rear here but how does that happen in a game situation?  3b is on the bag, 90+ feet away from the cutoff man standing just beyond 2b in the shallow outfield, the crowd is screaming, how is the 3b call ever heard?

*sigh*  90 ft?

[das]

*sigh*  90 ft?

What am I missing here?  3rd base is 90 ft. from 2nd base.  With the runner rounding 2nd heading to 3rd, the 3 sacker is going to be on the bag awaiting the throw.  2nd baseman or shortstop will be just beyond the 2nd base bag in short center in the cutoff position.

my question was: how does the 3rd baseman make the call to the cutoff guy to let the ball go through.  In a game situation.  Maybe I misunderstood Jim's comment.

[Noe]

What am I missing here?  3rd base is 90 ft. from 2nd base.  With the runner rounding 2nd heading to 3rd, the 3 sacker is going to be on the bag awaiting the throw.  2nd baseman or shortstop will be just beyond the 2nd base bag in short center in the cutoff position.

my question was: how does the 3rd baseman make the call to the cutoff guy to let the ball go through.  In a game situation.  Maybe I misunderstood Jim's comment.

Bourn was tagging up on second.  What am I missing here?

[ybbodeus]

I think das is asking how the cutoff man can possibly HEAR the 3rd baseman make the call...is there some OTHER way it's communicated besides verbally, perhaps.

[Noe]

I think das is asking how the cutoff man can possibly HEAR the 3rd baseman make the call...is there some OTHER way it's communicated besides verbally, perhaps.

No.  But practice helps makes it very clear where you expect a cut off man to be at all times.  An outfielder is never fooled by the positioning of an cut-off man.  Missing him or throwing through that man is no excuseable and screws up the whole idea of a cut-off man.  The guy who sets up a cut-off man yells out "left, left, left... stay" or something similar if he wants the man to go left until he's lined up.  If he yells "right, right, right... hold" or something similar, he wants him to move right until he's lined up.  The cut-off man is *already* listening to the man yelling, so if he can't hear him, the guy has to yell louder.  There is no way that the cut off man only listens when it's time to be told to "cut 2" or "let it go".

But if the concern is that the ball is too deep, then you setup a relay and not a cut-off situation, which is different.  In a cut-off situation, everyone covers a base and the cutoff man (second baseman for a shortstop, shortstop for a third baseman, thrid or first baseman for a catcher, all within shouting distance of one another) is going to be told what base to throw to or to let the ball travel to the base it was intended to go.  In a relay (watch when a ball is hit to the gaps for a double or all the way to the wall), the bag at second base isn't as important as setting up two guys in a relay formation (one in front of the other) to throw to the furthest bag away.  In such a case, the first guy in the relay goes out towards the outfielder who is moving back towards the wall and said first guy basically is ready to receive a throw (and by proxy become a shallow outfielder) and then he decides if he has a shot to get the man at the furthest bag away, like third or home or to run the ball in towards the infield and then quickly release the ball to a base.  The second guy is there in case a relay is necessary, but he's acting now as the cut-off man in the that particular play, but not for the outfielder to throw to but the shallow infielder/outfielder or first relay man.  Is second guy lined up with the furthest bag?  Yes, by the third baseman if that is the play, hence it is still the same idea.

In the standard cut-off man scenario, it's highly unlikely that the communication is untenable that it cannot be handled by just plain old fashion shouting until the guy reacts to your instructions.  Cut-off men don't go so darn far away that you can't communicate with them, that is not the purpose of a cut-off man.  They are usually close enough to you that you can have them cut the ball off and throw to any base you wish in an instant.  So I don't see the problem with the receiver both lining up the cut-off man and also making the cut call if necessary.  Am I truly missing something here that is not about cut-off and more about relay?  Is the question more about the first man out on a relay?

If so, they aren't usually listening for instruction, they are just wanting to make the outfielder's throw shorter and then they become the quasi-outfielder who then picks up the cut-off man.

[Taras Bulba]

I think das is asking how the cutoff man can possibly HEAR the 3rd baseman make the call...is there some OTHER way it's communicated besides verbally, perhaps.

Every major league third baseman has a complimentary subscription to Marvel Comics and noted the advertizement to "Learn How to Throw Your Voice."  They spend hours practicing it in the clubhouse, along with playing cards and viewing images of wholesome young women in "swimsuits."

[JimR]

What am I missing here?  3rd base is 90 ft. from 2nd base.  With the runner rounding 2nd heading to 3rd, the 3 sacker is going to be on the bag awaiting the throw.  2nd baseman or shortstop will be just beyond the 2nd base bag in short center in the cutoff position.

my question was: how does the 3rd baseman make the call to the cutoff guy to let the ball go through.  In a game situation.  Maybe I misunderstood Jim's comment.

the SS will not be in the OF grass on a fly ball. he likely will be on the dirt, and the 3B will line him up for the throw. teams do the cut calls differently. some say silence means let it go through. my teams would say "Cut 3 (or 2)" or "Let it go." these calls are screamed, and hearing is not a problem.

[Noe]

What am I missing here?  3rd base is 90 ft. from 2nd base.  With the runner rounding 2nd heading to 3rd, the 3 sacker is going to be on the bag awaiting the throw.  2nd baseman or shortstop will be just beyond the 2nd base bag in short center in the cutoff position.

my question was: how does the 3rd baseman make the call to the cutoff guy to let the ball go through.  In a game situation.  Maybe I misunderstood Jim's comment.

What I highlighted is where you're fooling yourself a little.  If a 2nd baseman goes out, the shortstop is covering second base and the 2nd baseman is a cut-off man for the shortstop and is told to either cut or let the ball come through because the play is at second.  If the play is at third because the ball travelled too far out, then the shortstop lines up behind second base, the 2nd baseman goes out and the outfielder throws to the second baseman if the ball is already a double and you want to keep the guy from getting a triple.  If it's the first to third scenario you're talking about, the shortstop doesn't go to the bag, the second baseman does and the outfielder fires to the shortstop who is lined up by the 3rd baseman and the shortstop is on the dirt portion of the infield.  3rd baseman can yell "cut 2" and the short stop will cut the ball and throw to the second baseman who is covering second base because perhaps the runner strayed off the bag too far or you want to keep the trailing man from taking second because the ball travelled to third.  In such a case, the bases must be covered by a second baseman, he isn't the cut-off man nor is he out in shallow centerfield (and neither would the shortstop be out there).  Or the 3rd baseman can yell "let it go" because the runner is running to third and you've got a shot at nailing him.

I doubt the communication is hindered in any way.

[Taras Bulba]

Thank God.  Knowing your appreciation of French culture, I thought you were going to suggest that some god-awful Marcel Marceau mime might be involved.

Houston doesn't have any good mimes left since they ran off Ensberg.  His impressions of an at bat were quite creative.

[VirtualBob]

What I highlighted is where you're fooling yourself a little.  If a 2nd baseman goes out, the shortstop is covering second base and the 2nd baseman is a cut-off man for the shortstop and is told to either cut or let the ball come through because the play is at second.  If the play is at third because the ball travelled too far out, then the shortstop lines up behind second base, the 2nd baseman goes out and the outfielder throws to the second baseman if the ball is already a double and you want to keep the guy from getting a triple.  If it's the first to third scenario you're talking about, the shortstop doesn't go to the bag, the second baseman does and the outfielder fires to the shortstop who is lined up by the 3rd baseman and the shortstop is on the dirt portion of the infield.  3rd baseman can yell "cut 2" and the short stop will cut the ball and throw to the second baseman who is covering second base because perhaps the runner strayed off the bag too far or you want to keep the trailing man from taking second because the ball travelled to third.  In such a case, the bases must be covered by a second baseman, he isn't the cut-off man nor is he out in shallow centerfield (and neither would the shortstop be out there).  Or the 3rd baseman can yell "let it go" because the runner is running to third and you've got a shot at nailing him.

I doubt the communication is hindered in any way.

And just to continue flogging this nag, the point here is that the cut-off man will be in a position to take a throw that *could* have made it all the way to the target base and then throw to a play *in front of him* at (in this case) 2B.  This puts him *between* 2B and 3B (though obviously not directly) and explains the original puzzlement your 90 feet plus comment elicited.

Contrast with a *relay man* who is positioned to take a throw that would *not* make it to a target bag.  This guy has to (a) choose the target bag (often with help from someone closer to the play) and (b) turn to make the throw.

[das]

What I highlighted is where you're fooling yourself a little.  If a 2nd baseman goes out, the shortstop is covering second base and the 2nd baseman is a cut-off man for the shortstop and is told to either cut or let the ball come through because the play is at second.  If the play is at third because the ball travelled too far out, then the shortstop lines up behind second base, the 2nd baseman goes out and the outfielder throws to the second baseman if the ball is already a double and you want to keep the guy from getting a triple.  If it's the first to third scenario you're talking about, the shortstop doesn't go to the bag, the second baseman does and the outfielder fires to the shortstop who is lined up by the 3rd baseman and the shortstop is on the dirt portion of the infield.  3rd baseman can yell "cut 2" and the short stop will cut the ball and throw to the second baseman who is covering second base because perhaps the runner strayed off the bag too far or you want to keep the trailing man from taking second because the ball travelled to third.  In such a case, the bases must be covered by a second baseman, he isn't the cut-off man nor is he out in shallow centerfield (and neither would the shortstop be out there).  Or the 3rd baseman can yell "let it go" because the runner is running to third and you've got a shot at nailing him.

I doubt the communication is hindered in any way.

Got it.  I was wondering how they could hear with the crowd and all.  It does not help that I'm old, slow and deaf so 90' and noisey seem like a recipe for miscommunication to me.  I guess that's why I'm not in the majors...

[rpntex]

i am so fucking glad you have no problem with what a MLB CF did. that is most comforting.

Why the sarcasm?  I was presenting another POV, and certainly not being critical of anyone else's.  I didn't realize that wasn't allowed in this forum.

I didn't question Ankiel's decision to throw to third.  Anyone who actually knows the game knows that's the correct decision.  I was questioning the decision to cut off the throw or not.

[rpntex]

1.  The play was bang-bang.  No player would have made the call to cut off the throw.
2.  Berkman is a helluva lot more likely to get a SF than a DP, so you go for the guy at third.

1) The 3B and SS should have the sitution in mind before the ball was ever hit.  It doesn't have to be bang-bang.  It's more a case of general strategy in that case. 

2) So Berkman hits a SF fly instead.  It's still only 1 run, with a runner on 1st, and 1 out.  No RISP, and you're still one pitch away from getting out of the inning.

I'm not critical of the Card's approach, just presenting another POV...that of staying away from the big inning early.  It's a pretty common approach as well.

[MikeyBoy]

the SS will not be in the OF grass on a fly ball. he likely will be on the dirt, and the 3B will line him up for the throw. teams do the cut calls differently. some say silence means let it go through. my teams would say "Cut 3 (or 2)" or "Let it go." these calls are screamed, and hearing is not a problem.

I'm glad I read the entire thread before posting, because this is exactly what I was thinking as reading, the SS shades towards thirdbase and the third baseman makes the decision to cut. Ankiel was not at fault in any way on that play, nor was any jake, but fuck'em anyhow.

[MikeyBoy]

1) The 3B and SS should have the sitution in mind before the ball was ever hit.  It doesn't have to be bang-bang.  It's more a case of general strategy in that case. 

They did and the strategy was to take a shot at the lead runner. Bourn is fast, but he's not faster than a baseball, there's still a chance to get him.

2) So Berkman hits a SF fly instead.  It's still only 1 run, with a runner on 1st, and 1 out.  No RISP, and you're still one pitch away from getting out of the inning.

Yet if the lead runner is out at thirdbase, then Matsui is on second with Berkman at the plate needing a hit to score a run with two outs.

[JimR]

1) The 3B and SS should have the sitution in mind before the ball was ever hit.  It doesn't have to be bang-bang.  It's more a case of general strategy in that case. 

2) So Berkman hits a SF fly instead.  It's still only 1 run, with a runner on 1st, and 1 out.  No RISP, and you're still one pitch away from getting out of the inning.

I'm not critical of the Card's approach, just presenting another POV...that of staying away from the big inning early.  It's a pretty common approach as well.

bullshit. let this die. you are two days late with the same bs.

there is no "general strategy" to a cutoff. it is routine positioning and the cut decision is a judgment call. surely you know that.

i cannot believe this thread has gone on for several days on a routine play that happens a million times in a season. fucking incredible overanalysis.