Thursday, October 13, 2005

I didn't think it was possible, but...

...I now hate AJ Pierzinksi, and Fox Sports, more than ever.

I'm seriously considering scalping tickets to Friday's game in Anaheim, just to watch the umpires come out: they will be booed probably more than at any other time in baseball history. And they'll deserve it. Fun stuff.

[Also, if you were as pissed of at Chris Myers's postgame interview as much as I was -- he didn't have the balls to let the White Sox players know they got a serious gift, and then he plugged not one, but two Fox shows -- then click here and him them know.]


  1. Damn, it's hours later and I still am pissed off. Memories of 1999 -- which is weird, since I really don't care about the Angels that much.

    [Side story: At the bar where I got pissed off at, I met some dude who was (or claimed to have been) a neighbor of Mike Scioscia in his playing days. He was pretty upset.]

    What's pissing me off is this: the umps, and columnists like Tom Verducci, are claiming since the ball "changed its angle", it must have bounced. Anyone who says this is admitting a serious lack of understanding of even basic physics. Think about pool, or golf -- as a ball finds its way into a pocket, it can change direction. This isn't rocket science, folks.

  2. Plus my perspective on the whole thing is the if the ball did hit the ground don't you think there would have been a little dirt kicked up?

    Granted, that may be difficult to see from first base and impossible to see from home plate. So yea, I guess it really doesn't matter.

    I am just annoyed that the umpire can be overruled like that.

  3. We need lasers! Or robots!

    (Or at least, uniform hand signals throughout baseball.)

  4. Earl, you're just jealous that I was all over the QuesTec idea before it was installed in any stadium.

    That being said, I agree that uniform hand-signals would be way more useful. I know it's "tradition" to adjust the umps calls in every game, but it's clear that it leaves too much room for interpretation.

    In this case, the ump typically said "no catch" if the ball was in the dirt, but he also didn't call the batter "out" - just pumped his fist. As an impartial observer I think a case can be madde for both points of view, which is unaccepatable.

    All that being said, a robot would have kicked ass... (in a very robotic voice) "Stirke three... beep... beep.. beep.. You'rrrrrrrrrre out!!! Beep... beep... beep... mininininini"

    (Everyone laughs and exits stage left)

    or maybe "Number 5 is a live... and you're out of here... bozo...(spins in cirlces) Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!"

    Ally Sheedy: Oh Number 5!!!

  5. I loke the headline on

    "Pierzynski sparks rally, discussion."

    Discussion? Are you serious?

  6. Well, sure, it sparked plenty of discussion:

    - how to make sure Doug Eddings never calls an important game, ever again;
    - how to provide security for the umpires when they take the field Monday;
    - whether to enforce the "uniform hand signals" rule now, or starting in 2006;
    - how it's possible that AJ Pierzinksi could make Ozzie Guillen seem like a thoughtful, reasonable person;

    and so forth.

    IBID: I love your robot ideas. Maybe the robot from Lost in Space?

  7. The robot in Lost In Space does not conform to MLB rules governing size and bulk on the playing field. Too bad.