Game 13: Yankees 7, Indians 3
by Ryan on Apr 19, 2009 5:11 PM EDT
in Game Recaps
Email
PrintCarl Pavano made, under the circumstances, an outstanding start. This was his first start against the Yankees after leaving the organization last winter, and his tenure with New York was marred by almost constant injuries. Joe Torre added fuel to the fire over the winter by ripping Pavano in his book. To Pavano's credit, he didn't respond in kind to Torre or any of his other critics. I suppose he preferred to make his statement on the field, and he did so today. He gave up one run on four hits over six innings, and only got into one jam all day. He hit corners with his fastball, and got hitters to roll over on changeups outside after buzzing them inside with a fastball.
His only problems came after he left the mound. He was pulled after six, having thrown 89 pitches, mainly because (IMO) the Yankees were leading off the seventh with two left-handed hitters. The problem with that strategy was that Rafael Perez, the only southpaw short reliever in the pen, had been awful thus far. Given how Pavano was pitching and his decent pitch count, I would have much rather taken the risk of leaving him out at least for the first two batters than to go with the left-on-left percentages. Perez gave up a double to Robinson Cano, and a single to Hideki Matsui He was removed in favor of Jensen Lewis, who had also been struggling in 2009. Cody Ransom bunted back to the pitcher, and Lewis got Matsui at second. Jorge Posada then came to the plate, and in that at-bat, the game was decided, not by the players, but the umpire crew.
Posada hit a long drive towards the short porch in right field, and Trevor Crowe jumped at the fence to bring it in, but a couple fans reached over the fence and interfered with Crowe. The ball ricocheted back into the field of play, but the first base umpire called the ball over the fence and the Yankees took the lead. After Eric Wedge came out to argue, the umpire crew agreed to use instant replay to review the play. I think, looking at the replays they showed on STO, that fans reached into the field of play to hinder Crowe in making a play at the ball. I don't know if Crowe would have made the catch, and it certainly would have been an extraordinary catch had he brought it in, but the fan contact occurred in play, and the call certainly should not have been a home run.
The umpires did not comment on the call after the game, but their (second-hand) explanation to Wedge was that the ball hit the fan first, beyond the plane of the wall.
The controversy over the Posada home run should not overshadow the Indian setup corps blowing another game. Perez and Lewis, stalwarts down the stretch last season, right now can't be counted on to protect leads. While they'll probably get their acts in order down the road, they can't be pitching in hold situations now. Of course not many of the rest of the setup men are pitching that well either, so perhaps a move will be made on Monday to reconfigure things.
The game got out of reach in the eighth after Shin-Soo Choo let a Cody Ransom fly ball fall in, scoring three runs. I don't think Choo lost the ball in the sun; I rather think he misjudged it, which is even more of a mistake, for an outfielder should never give up a fly ball until he is certain the ball is out of play. Choo's been fantastic at the plate these first two weeks, but in the field he's made several major mental errors.
Next Up: An off-day on Monday, followed by the Royals on Tuesday. Laffey vs. Ponson, 7:05 PM.
| Highest WPA | Lowest WPA | ||
| Carl Pavano | .278 | Jensen Lewis | -.322 |
| Ryan Garko | .196 | Rafael Perez | -.200 |
| Shin-Soo Choo | .046 | Mark DeRosa | -.122 |
116 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I seem to be alone in not thinking the Posada call was that big of a deal. To me the game hinged on Mark Derosa swinging on a 3-1 count with the bases loaded in the seventh. I didn’t see the pitch, but I read in the game thread it was ball four. The Tribe had the Yankees on the ropes, with Burnett out of the game. Pavano had just made a heroic stop in the bottom of the sixth, striking out Swisher with the bases loaded. DeRosa takes ball four, the Indians win, I think. That changes the whole game.
I seem to be alone in not thinking the Posada call was that big of a deal.
Since the Indians didn’t take advantage of the bases-loaded situation in the seventh, it made the home run call a big deal. The call’s still wrong whatever the score, but it had a major effect on the outcome of the game because the score was so close.
Yes, the call appeared to be wrong, but it has to be pretty obvious to be reversed. I sense even here there was some question about whether there was fan interference or not. A wrong call didn’t decide this game, in my opinion.
Well it gave the Yankees the lead. I don’t see how it can’t be a massive contributing factor in the loss
Fans sitting in seats immediately adjacent to the playing field shouldn’t be allowed to have gloves.
Fans over the age of 10 shouldn’t be allowed to have gloves at a baseball game
by matt7 on Apr 20, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Glove or no glove does not determine whether or not fan interference is involved.
And an 11 year old with a glove is turned away or has to give up his glove at the gate? I wish people would think through rules and laws they concoct to control people’s behavior.
Eric Wedge. The Adam LaRoche of managers.
I think his point is that some rules or laws are created without thinking of all of the implications
Besides the fact that Matt7 was joking and nobody is actually considering making this a rule, emd2k3’s point isn’t a very good one. We make “bright line” rules all the time and it is not because the implications aren’t fully realized. It’s about practicality and efficiency.
I seem to be alone in not thinking the Posada call was that big of a deal. To me the game hinged on Mark Derosa swinging on a 3-1 count with the bases loaded in the seventh. I didn’t see the pitch, but I read in the game thread it was ball four.
I looked at this in the highlights and it was defiinitely a strike. Just above the knees, and it split the plate in half. I probably would’ve liked him to take a pitch there, but considering he looks like a good low-ball hitter and he came into the game second in the league in RBI’s, I can understand why he swung. He just rolled over it rather than driving it to the middle of the field.
I’m more upset that a pitcher with limited experience with what looks like one main pitch was able to get two experienced hitters to do exactly what he wanted them to do.
Have to tip my cap to all four of the mods coming out with instantaneous, rational recaps of all games, leaving all emotion out of the equation. Truly impressive…really.
by cheech99 on Apr 19, 2009 5:24 PM EDT reply actions 2 recs
Although Pavano loaded the bases in the 6th, the two singles weren’t hit that hard and he got out of the inning with a strikeout. He’d only thrown 89 pitches so the decision to take him out, to me was very stupid. When you have a pen that’s struggling as bad as ours is and has been as taxed as much as ours has, there’s no rational reason to take the starter out an inning too early, matchup or no matchup. Very frustrating.
The guys been hurt – a lot – over the past 4 years. It’s a long season, I wouldn’t risk injurying our #3 starter for just one win. I’m with Wedge here.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
Cowards. Stand up and be a man about it, don’t hide behind no comment. Tell us what you saw and let us judge.
by Tribe Fan Matt on Apr 19, 2009 6:14 PM EDT up reply actions
I was going to post a screen shot of the Posada ball, but whatever, it’s done- a call that’s at best cowardly and at worst dishonest.
I trying to sort out how we might realistically configure things.
The easiest bet is the Raffy Pdoesn’t pitch in high leverage situations for a while – he’s walking guys, not striking people out AND giving up hits. I’ve been reluctant to bail on him, but I have to admit we have to figure him out.
Betancourt and JLewis are still going to be our setup guys. Why? They haven’t been horrible (still getting Ks) and there are no better options.
Koba – still hanging around doing his thing. No reason to cut him when we can send others down, but let’s not pretend that he has moved up in the order.
Joe Smith/Zack Jackson – here are the question marks – will either of these guys have their roles redefined. Specifically, should either be moved into a more traditional late-inning high leverage role? They’ve been useful already in their own roles, but we may need help in the 7th and 8th.
Chulk – the candidate to go back down to Columbus. An extra small sample size to judge him on, but walks + hits + few strikeouts = short leash. And we may need the spot for….
Meloan – I’m ready. He’s on the 40. Am I missing something?
Salas – Any word?
Sipp – maybe, maybe. Lefty. And on the 40. 5 BBs in 7.0 IP at Columbus, and never been up. You’d like to introduce him at the bottom of the pen.
Here’s the poll question: Tuesday night, 7th inning, big situation with a tough lefty coming up. Assuming the starter is out, who’s on the mound?
I think we should use him in a set up role, but the problem is that he’s been our sole long relief guy. So you need someone else to fill that role. What about sending Chulk down and bringing up Sowers to serve a long relief/spot starter role? Then use Zachson and JLew (if he can get his gopher ball problem under control!) to set up, and try to get Raffy P back on track by using him in lower pressure situations. Remember that he started last year pretty poorly, but then came around.
"Lotta heart in Cleveland." - Ian Hunter
by Denver Tribe Fan on Apr 19, 2009 6:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Is a long man needed? Usage patterns suggest the Indians want arms. If one guy can’t be used because he’s the long guy and the team might need him tomorrow, is that a good use of a roster spot? Couldn’t they just shuttle up someone from Columbus if they’re short? How many times has Jackson been used as a long man? Considering how lousy the starting pitching has been, it seems the rationale for a long man is questionable.
Out of curiosity, why not send Perez down to Columbus? Give him a couple of weeks of regular work.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Why not indeed? Sounds good to me.
I thought Chulk might go first for the following reason: given the choice between Chulk and Perez as the last man in the pen (more or less), I’d still rather have Perez, for the rare case when that guy has to be used in a significant moment. But that probably just speaks to the fact that I really can’t quit him. And Chulk probably does deserve some more time to get acclimated.
But Chulk is out of options, and I’m pretty sure we’d lose him if we DFA’ed him.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
OH NO
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
by westbrook on Apr 20, 2009 4:30 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
You can say that, but Chulk might’ve been the best reliever in Goodyear. I know he’s Vinny Chulk, but it’s not beyond the realm of possibility that he turns into a decent 7th-inning guy. And if he does, I’d prefer he does that with the Tribe, especially with what we’ve seen from everyone else thus far.
http://www.letsgotribe.com/2009/4/11/830973/game-thread-2-april-11-2009#14017410
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
I generally don’t like to criticize bullpen decisions, but I have to agree with most everyone here. If Perez had started the season on fire, then the decision to bring him out to start the 7th is maybe 50/50 given who was coming to bat. However, Pavano was still under 90 pitches and clearly was out to prove something against the 6-7-8 in the Yankee order.
With the other stuff we have read about Perez’s slider lacking any sort of bite in the cold weather, I think it becomes even more clear. Today’s conditions were windy and chilly. Send Pavano back out, but have the pen ready immediately
PRESS MUTE FIRST
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGY938caSpE
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
Are the umps allowed to look on YouTube for clear and convincing evidence?
by AllenSmith on Apr 19, 2009 7:28 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
I am interested to see this. This is the feed I was watching and I was CONVINCED it was fan interference from the start, even before they went to replays. Did you guys not have the same angle?
by NickFantana on Apr 19, 2009 10:57 PM EDT up reply actions
3.16
When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.
APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
Rule 3.16 Comment: There is a difference between a ball which has been thrown or batted into the stands, touching a spectator thereby being out of play even though it rebounds onto the field and a spectator going onto the field or reaching over, under or through a barrier and touching a ball in play or touching or otherwise interfering with a player. In the latter case it is clearly intentional and shall be dealt with as intentional interference as in Rule 3.15. Batter and runners shall be placed where in the umpire’s judgment they would have been had the interference not occurred.
No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk. However, should a spectator reach out on the playing field side of such fence, railing or rope, and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball, then the batsman should be called out for the spectator’s interference. Example: Runner on third base, one out and a batter hits a fly ball deep to the outfield (fair or foul). Spectator clearly interferes with the outfielder attempting to catch the fly ball. Umpire calls the batter out for spectator interference. Ball is dead at the time of the call. Umpire decides that because of the distance the ball was hit, the runner on third base would have scored after the catch if the fielder had caught the ball which was interfered with, therefore, the runner is permitted to score. This might not be the case if such fly ball was interfered with a short distance from home plate.
No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk.
This would seem to be the critical phrase in this case. Regardless of whether the fan also stuck his glove over the plane of the playing field, in front of the fence, it looks on the replay like Crowe had to reach his glove back above and beyond the fence in order to catch it. Unlike the Orioles playoff game ten years ago, there is no fan interference beyond the fence. Just because the fielder could catch the ball there doesn’t mean the fans have to defer to him.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
Here’s the ‘after’ picture:
The fan reached out into play, even though the trajectory of the ball was such that it was probably going over the fence. But the contact with the ball occurred before the the ball went over the fence.
I think Jay is wrong if he’s saying there can be no interference on a play if the fielder reaches over the fence into the stands. The sentence he quotes from the rule is qualified immediately to say that a fan reaching over into the playing field side of the fence and plainly preventing a catch is interference, so this should be so even if the player is reaching into the stands to make the catch. This play is difficult to call because although the rule contemplates a 2 dimensional boundary (a vertical plane), in fact the fence here and the area above it are 3 dimensional. perhaps six inches wide. From the picture it appears the gloves and the ball are above the fence but not clearly on either side of it. So where is the boundary between in play and out of play? If a ball hit the horizontal plane that is the top of the fence, and then without hitting anything beyond that bounced back onto the outfield grass, I am guessing it would not be a homerun. Therefore, the area directly above the fence is in play and the fan’s contact with the fielder’s glove could be interference; that is, although the rule only says “on the playing field side of the fence” that should be interpreted to mean “on the playing field side of the vertical plane created by the back of the fence that is the boundary between in play and out of play.” But the boundary could be the vertical plane created by the front of the fence.
So having seen it live on TBS and listening to Carey and Darling I first thought it should have been an out, then thought it should have been a homerun, and now think it maybe ideally should have been an out. But the problem is on the initial call it may not have been clear where the spectators glove/hands were. And then after the initial call was that it was a home run the replay rule says that there must be convincing evidence to overturn the initial ruling, and maybe there wasn’t.
Wait, what the heck is the guy on the right doin? Nothing says jackass like weaing a blazer to a baseball game with your Yankee hat on backwards.
by supermarioelia on Apr 20, 2009 11:49 PM EDT up reply actions
I read that book and had no idea they made a movie out of it until right now.
by jakesinger777 on Apr 21, 2009 1:01 PM EDT up reply actions
And his cell phone is open, of course
I'm *always* in the driver's seat, cugino -- Chuck
by Turkmenbashi on Apr 21, 2009 5:18 PM EDT up reply actions
My reading of that portion of the rule — “when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing …” is that over does not mean above. It’s the difference between Jeffrey Maier and Bartman. Moises Alou went OVER the railing, in addition to going above it. So unless the umps’ ruling was based on Crowe going over AND above the outfield, then I don’t think that rule should have come into play. Those fans came over the barrier in my view, not vice versa.
Il faut d'abord durer.
If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out.
I think this is a key phrase. Even though it looks like Crowe would’ve had a play on the ball, and in my biased opinion, would have caught it, the umpires probably had a problem with the word “clearly” in that rule.
If the umpires are saying that contact with the ball occurred on the fans side of the wall, they’re “clearly” wrong.
I really don’t think you can blame Choo for Ransom’s double. I don’t think he had a chance to catch that ball because it was so close to the line. He did pull up at the end but I think that’s because he knew he couldn’t get to it so he wanted to be able to play it off the bounce. I didn’t get a good look at the path he took to the ball, so maybe if he got a better jump he could have got there, but from the view I saw there was no way he was going to catch that ball. It was just bad luck that the ball fell in the right place after Betancourt got him to break his bat.
It also speaks again to how much the ball carries in that bandbox. Broken bat and the ball bounces on the warning track?
Yeah, that was crazy. When I saw the bat go flying on that swing I thought it was a pop-up on the infield and the inning was over. It’s ridiculous that the ball went as far as it did. I mean, we’re talking Cody Ransom here, not Vlad Guerrero or Manny.
by Buckeye Brad on Apr 19, 2009 8:43 PM EDT up reply actions
On a side note, is Crowe growing on anyone else? His numbers aren’t phenominal but he seems like he has some grit
As a utility player, I prefer him to Barfield. Particularly if Choo’s awful defense continues.
Il faut d'abord durer.
+1. Fast, appears to be a solid defender and can play all 3 outfield positions. I like that as the last man on the roster
by Roger Dorn on Apr 19, 2009 11:46 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Got no reason to like or dislike the guy yet. I’ll give you this: he looks like a baseball player.
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Apr 19, 2009 9:13 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Ya know what? I’m gonna give the boyz – and the umps too – a mulligan on this one. So we got jobbed – what did you expect? Justice? Never happen, we’re playin’ in NYC for chrissakes, were lucky if the call balls and strikes right. And besides, after the biblical beatdown we put on those jackasses yesterday, the Stienbrenner Spawn wouldda probably croaked if the umps wouldda reversed that HR call.
Nope, ain’t gonna dwell on it. And you know why? Cuz I learned a lotta great stuff from this series. Number one: This $1.5B park is a white elephant. It sucks – no really, lobster rolls, sushi, fru-fru draft beer and all, it sucks as a place to play baseball. Two, the vagaries of the park negate the half a billion bucks the Wit Brothers – Dim and Half – spent on pitching. Three, if this is level of baseball the typical NY “fan” can expect, they won’t be able to give the goddam tickets away, tuxedoed servers or not. In short, the Wits’ll be hemorrhaging cash for the foreseeable future. And if the Feds offer ‘em a bailout, I’m gonna start my own Tea Party!
Resident LGT results-oriented boob.
by mauichuck on Apr 19, 2009 9:13 PM EDT reply actions 5 recs
The voice of reason. One thing that occurred to me is these right field bleachers are even more conducive to fan interference than the old Yankee Stadium. There will be other incidents. This may be like a holding call: you don’t get the penalty the first time, but the ref will be watching next time. This is of small consolation to the Tribe, but I bet it bites the Yankees in the ass. Another flaw in the design.
The biggest problem is playing in a bandbox. I think it’s been reasonably demonstrated that parks like Cincinnati, Texas, and Coors Field (pre-humidor) have shown that the home team just cannot reasonably predict what will happen offensively. It puts too much strain on the pitching staff and the team cannot expect to win all of the games they deserve to win. This could be a major major problem for the Yankees until it is fixed
Counting two exhibition games, there were 25 home runs hit in the first five games played there. And it isn’t hot yet. The Yankees threw 236 pitches yesterday. Admittedly a rare game, but if you have to regularly throw 175+ pitches it hurts. Yankees also already lead the AL (sixth in majors) with pitches per plate appearance.
I wouldn’t say it sucks, but it’s certainly overrated. I had the pleasure of going on Saturday, so my experience could not have been much better. I will say that the accounts about how expensive food and beer are have been wildly exaggerated. I had three buffalo chicken sliders with fries and a decently tall glass of beer for 20 bucks. Certainly not that ridiculous for a baseball game.
Right field is a joke though. My depth perception probably wasn’t the best since I had the worst seats in the house. Still, some of those home runs to right field initially looked like fly-outs. I think they’re going to have to do something to fix it.
Are teams permitted to make alterations to their fields during the season? I think there must be some sort of rule prohibiting this. Otherwise you’d move the fences back for the slugging teams, and up for when you play the Twins. Move the right field fence back when you have a flyball RHP going. In the days of Municipal Stadium they built a shorter fence to try to score more runs (that old centerfield was 470 feet in 1932, and after a few minor adjustments went to 410 feet on April 27, 1947 and 400 in 1970).
Yes, any changes to the dimensions of a ballpark can only happen in the offseason. And the changes must first be approved by MLB.
by Buckeye Brad on Apr 19, 2009 11:07 PM EDT up reply actions
They can, however, take actions like blocking the openings of the wall on the upper part of the stadium
Or, as in the Metrodome, turning on the air-blowers at strategic moments.
by odradek on Apr 20, 2009 12:24 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Couldn’t press the submit button to flag that because it had already been deleted, I guess. Good job, mods.
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
I’m all for people writing about the Tribe, but you don’t walk into a fine restaurant and announce that you just opened up a burrito cart across on the corner. You have to stand on the corner and build your brand, or else wash the dishes in the restaurant and work your way up.
Was I the only one that thought “Franky would have had that one” after the play? I believe he would have levitated into the stands and smited the dirty heathens befouling the ball in play.
Anyways, in a larger context, splitting a series on the road is a decent result. Sure we could have just as easily swept them and humiliated them, but for right now this team is undeniably playing better ball. Not playoff-caliber ball .. but better ball overall.
I hadn’t thought of it, but now that you mention it, yeah, I think somehow Frankie woulda grabbed it. Joe Smith mighta had it too. Sorry, Jensen. If you’re reading this, I think actually you’re pitching ok. What’s the deal with Perez?
Well, Gutz probably would have had it. But that doesn’t mean it wan’t interference.
Ben Francisco: An Outfielder only on baseball cards and roster sheets.
I thought that Crowe made a darn good attempt at it; I’m sure that catch is incredibly difficult without anything in the way. Gutz is a better fielder, I’d assume, but it’s hard to say that Crowe didn’t do everything that could’ve been done.
Il faut d'abord durer.
The two fans would have been so captivated by Gootz’ grace, and in anticipation a surefire webgem, that they would not have intervened.
Nah. I don’t know. This won’t be the last time we see a play like this one. I believe the park was dimensioned with this kind of thrilling play in mind—it’s a neat characteristic—but the unintended consequence is that there will inevitable be more instances of fan interference such as this.
by jhon on Apr 20, 2009 5:29 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
To which I say, the fan did what he should have done. The chances that any of us will be involved in a similar play is very remote, but just in case, hopefully we learned from this. Interfere if it helps your team. If it’s going to hurt your team, then move out of the way. Unless a fan actually drops onto the field, or maybe if a fan reaches well below the front of the fence, the umps will not call it. Leaning clear into the field isn’t enough.
This is what bothers me the most about the Bartman play. He was clearly a baseball nerd: he should’ve known which team was at-bat and moved out of the way.
Who, Bartman? Maybe. Would you agree that he got a raw deal from Cubs Nation?
by jhon on Apr 20, 2009 6:58 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I was at Wrigley Field, working almost literally below Bartman in the money room. I was not anything more than a casual Cubs fan, but a lot of my friends are die-hard Cubs fans (to be distinguished from fratastic Wrigley fans). The pain was very, very, real, and fairly spectacular.
If that happened to the Tribe, it would not have been so drastic of a reaction, but only because the spotlight wouldn’t have been so great.
Il faut d'abord durer.
I think you’re asking joeee, but I’ve interrupted you guys before. He didn’t get a raw deal from Cubs Nation. The hand of fate reached down and said “Hey kid, you have been chosen to have a minor but real impact on the Cubs’ chance to go to the World Series” and his reaction (ok, his gut reaction) was “no thanks, I’d rather have a souvenir.”
Just in case it’s not obvious, none of this would excuse some of the nonsense overreactions from Cub fans. Although I think popcorn dumping is appropriate in that situation.
Getting something doused on you must be humiliating, but I imagine everything is happening so fast… Thousands of ringtones. Outrageous shrieks and curse words. Pepperoni pizza thrust into unlooking faces. Total chaos. I’m not sure I could control where the contents of my popcorn bucket end up in that situation.
I’m ready to dump more than popcorn on the twin jackasses who stuffed Crowe. Shapiro’s right—shouldn’t lay too much blame with them—but I’m still a little bitter.
Absolutely. Everything about it was tragic. I thought I heard Moises say later in a presser that he wouldn’t have gotten the ball anyway. It was so close. It really couldn’t have happened to a less deserving dude.
Alex Gonzalez let a routine DP ball go through his legs. Bartman has nothing to do with it.
So 2009.
by Gradyforpresident on Apr 20, 2009 8:01 PM EDT up reply actions
i mean, if it’s garko going back for a long fly at the wall, should i assume that he would not make the play, and that it is my sacred duty to interfere so blatantly that the umps would call the batter out? or should i stay out of the way, out of fear that the umps wouldn’t call it?
baseball players have it easy; ball is hit, so go catch it. being a good fan takes brain powers.
Garko doesn’t have the escape velocity to get to a point where you could possibly interfere with him.
by woodsmeister on Apr 20, 2009 7:53 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Let's Go Tribe
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- The Citi Field All-Star game has finally been made official for 2013
- Brett Lawrie receives four-game suspension, fined for ‘aggressive actions’ toward umpire
- PNC Park security guard loses finger in struggle with fan during Pirates game
- Create-a-Caption: Partying like it’s 1988
- The Ron Washington puppet is watching you while you sleep — and has possibly jinxed the Rangers
