Lifted Up

Yea, Simon, what about that game? Good point for argument on the Shore pitching. It was, of course, a few years before my time (I only go back to watching the Dodgers in the Coliseum and the Angels at LA Wrigley.)

Raf, I disagreed with you at the time about Fay, but held my peace. It wasn't enough to say Fay's behavior was not forecast perfectly, that forecasters did not do their best job, or even that they did a poor job on Fay. I guess for emphasis we have to say they got nothing right, then multiply the emphasis with the word "aboslutely". Actually, when it was getting close to Florida's west coast, they were correct in saying that Fay would cross to the Atlantic shores, stall, and move back west across Florida. I know that wasn't the forecast at the start of fay's development, but yuu said "absolutely nothing"! As far as Gustav, i think that was hanf\dled very well. yes, I know, your WAG idea is all in fun!!!

Since you have made it clear you are giving your account from your own point of view, I think you observation is reasonable and realistic. I was in the 8th corps, as Kristen was, and for most of my corps time I didn't see or hear of anythng about women having to "submit" to the man of God in the way that Kristen was made to, or of the idea that corps men were supposed to "loosen up" sexually, as VPW presumably told LCM. The lockbox was kept pretty tightly closed. I was on our corps camping trip (the one where we carried our live chicken dinners) in March 1978, where one night I was in a two person coed tent, and I know neither one of us had the slightest thought of anything sexual. On the other hand, Kristen's account in her book tells of the abuse that she suffered well before she went into the corps. As for me, the "loosening up" idea filtered down to me during the fall of 1979 in my final residence year at HQ in the form of a little incident. It was very minor and certainly not abuse, but as I wrote in Kristen's blog, it because one little flag to me that abuse such as Kristen accounts of COULD have happened. Speaking of those going WOW, at ROA 1978, those of us corps who were going WOW the coming year were called into the woods for a meeting and told to watch ourselves, because there had already been several abortions TWI had to pay for.

I still think it was interesting that Sandy's perfect game in 1965 was almost a double no-hitter against the Cubs' Bob Hendley. The score was 1-0, the Dodgers got their run in the 5th inning, and their lone hit in the 7th. Actually, after posting this, I realized that technically Hendley wouldn't have had a no-hitter because the Dodgers were the home team and, having a lead, did not bat in the 9th.

No kidding. At my level, I don't have too many consequences to suffer if I screw up; if I get enough games, I might make a grand and a half during a two month seaon. But still, we get the speal on the above. And, of course, any ump who has made it to the bigs (4 umps for a game) has had to go through many two ump games in a career. Positioning is important to BE in the right place to make the call...not to be running to the right place to make it. although if it happened with one out, they couldn't say that.

I'm pretty sure this has never happened, but I know of a rotten way for a no hitter to be spoiled. Just to make it even better, we'll go straight to the ninth. Batter walks, and the next batter hits a sharp grounder to second. The second baseman is ready to field the ball, but the ball hits the runner while he is going to second. The runner is out for interference, but by the baseball rules (see the scoring section), the batter is credited with a base hit. Like I said, this would be rotten, wouldn't it? Of course, if this actually happened, I suppose the higher ups might rule differently, against the written rules but "in the spirit of the rules", as was done in the George Brett pine tar case years ago. Especially since the ruling would not affect the outcome of the game either way. The same thing can happen if a fair batted ball hits an umpire. The main difference here is that nobody is out, but it would still stink. However, in the bigs this would be inlikely to happen because of an ump at each base. In lower echelons, when there is only the plate ump and one field ump, the field ump often has to position himself (or herself, yes, I've worked with female umps) well inside the baselines with runners on base because of potential plays at multiple points. And if a batted ball passes a fielder other than the pitcher, or is touched by any fielder, interference does not apply unless it is deemed intentional by the runner.

Wednesday, July 24 Hall debates: Ron Santo -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Joe Sheehan Special to ESPN.com Last year, in an ESPN.com chat session, I was asked which players not in the Hall of Fame were most worthy of induction. I threw out about six names, but other than Bert Blyleven and Ron Santo, I don't feel strongly about anyone. Later this week, Michael Wolverton will make the case for Bert Blyleven, so I'm going to tackle Santo today. (Not literally; that would be mean.) When Ron Santo retired, he was probably the second-best third baseman in the history of the game. We've had a bit of a golden age since then, with Mike Schmidt, George Brett and Wade Boggs, Hall of Famers all; but Santo, when he walked away after 1974, was behind only Eddie Mathews among the game's great third sackers. The omission of Ron Santo is the most egregious mistake ever made by the Baseball Writers Association of America. They should have inducted Santo 20 years ago, and that they overlooked him throughout his 15 years on the ballot is a shame. I sincerely hope that the new Veterans Committee rights the error quickly. It will be a boon to their credibility and a honor for a man too long left outside the hallowed halls of Cooperstown. Here's something else that's interesting: the list of players most comparable to Santo (available at baseball-reference.com) includes no Hall of Famers. That's not because he himself isn't worthy, but because a bunch of spots on that list are occupied by outfielders who didn't hit enough to be enshrined. Santo's best comparison is Dale Murphy, who is a Hall of Fame candidate for what he did as a center fielder and right fielder. Santo has comparable career numbers to Murphy, but did his work as a Gold Glove third baseman in the greatest pitchers' era since the teens. Brian Downing, George Foster and Don Baylor, all lousy defensive outfielders or DHs, spent most of their careers in the middle of the lineup and put up career numbers comparable to Santo's. His other comps are third basemen who are inferior to him, but reasonable Hall candidates in their own right, guys like Graig Nettles and Ken Boyer. Santo is unique in baseball history, a third baseman who hit like a left fielder while playing excellent defense at the hot corner. Part of the reason Santo has been left out of the Hall of Fame is that the BBWAA has never quite figured out what to do with third basemen. They are historically underrepresented, and the change in the position over time has made it difficult to establish standards for what makes a Hall of Fame third baseman. Santo also lacked one signature skill on which to hang his case; he doesn't have 400 home runs or 3,000 hits or one major point his supporters could use to beat his candidacy home. Actually, the biases Santo fights are more basic that that. Large parts of his value are hidden in areas that the BBWAA hasn't done a good job of recognizing: defense and walks. Santo was the NL's Gold Glove winner at third base from 1964 through 1968, and led the league in bases on balls in four of those five years. He was among the league leaders in OBP and slugging throughout the 1960s, finishing in the top 10 in both categories in every season from 1964 through 1967. He was a reasonable MVP candidate throughout this time, with his chances being hurt every year by the lousy Cubs team around him. You simply couldn't win an NL MVP on a bad team in the 1960s; every NL MVP winner in that decade played for a team that won at least 90 games. The Cubs won 90 games just once, in 1969, a season that for some reason isn't remembered on the North Side as their best performance of the decade. Because Santo never appeared in the postseason and rarely was a factor in a pennant race, he didn't have the visibility of other players. This hurt him, probably unfairly, with the voters. Santo never had a monster season, in part because his era wouldn't allow for them. Yes, he played in Wrigley Field, which helped his numbers, but the game-wide dampening of offense kept him from having the signature years, the 40-homer, 120-RBI campaigns that Hall of Fame voters love to see on a resumé. He was never the best player in the league -- there was this guy named Mays who made that impossible -- but you can make a case for him as the second-best player in the NL during his peak. So Santo was one of the top few players in his league for about six years, the second-best third baseman in the game's history upon his retirement, and put up numbers at a defensive position that would have made him a borderline Hall of Fame candidate at an offensive one. That is a Hall of Famer. The omission of Ron Santo is the most egregious mistake ever made by the Baseball Writers Association of America. They should have inducted Santo 20 years ago, and that they overlooked him throughout his 15 years on the ballot is a shame. I sincerely hope that the new Veterans Committee rights the error quickly. It will be a boon to their credibility and a honor for a man too long left outside the hallowed halls of Cooperstown.

Maybe, but you'd better have some meat in there for the sharks among us......

Groucho, I'm pretty sure he didn't sniff out the hidden reference I had to him on another thread in this forum..... In reference to a remark I made early in this thread about my only problem with the book, yes, it is getting worn, but still together. I have ben re reading it, trying to keep in mind that it is not just about Kristen.

Well, whose voice do you think is still imprinted in my mind from listening to all those dodger games in the late 50s??? Unfortunately, the current Dodgers can't bring bak Duke Snider, Don Demeter, the Sherry brothers (the best hitting pitcher brothers baseball has ever seen), Jim Gilliam, and of course in later years, Don and sandy...

Don't know how I can get the tune to you, unless you are a glutton for punishment and want me to call you up and sing it for you! of course the words sound dry without the tune. It was a bunch of (presumably) kids singing the jingle, then Frank Howard would come on and give his (unsung) lines. "Frank goodness, frank goodness, for briggs Better Franks; without them what would little kids do... They're tasty, they're 'licious, they're mar...vo...lous... (repeat first line)... then Howard came on...."This is Frank Howard, and I can tell you, that Briggs starts with quality lean meat...."

Years ago, on a vacation, I saw a game at "the Big 'A'", before they closed it in. The view of the mountains past the outfield was tremendous. remember, I'm the one that saw those LA angels play during their first year, at Wrigley Field in L.A. That one is quite far back on this long thread by now.

I saw Howard bunt his way on once. he was not exactly fleet despit long strides...but since the infielders were playing him on the edge of the outfield grass, he got away with it. Among other things, he was the spokesman for "Briggs Better FRANKS" I rememebr the jingle and his speal like I just heard it; as I heard it so many times.

Oak, I assume we were talking about apologies, whether about major things, or like the one I spoke of something very minor, from someone else who was out. If you can get one from someone still in, no matter how low or high, let us all know!

Funny that years ago, I think it was even back to Waydale, I got a like conditional apology from someone who is still around on GS. I couldnt remember anything at the time. Upon further reflection, i did remember something it could have applied to. It was pretty doggone minor, and i never saw the need to re-bring it up. My guess is that if I mention it after all these years, we could both have a nice laugh!

HA HA HA HA HA....find me the money for the fees and equipment for Umpire school....then convince me wy an almost 58 year old should give it a try...then maybe I'll make it to those games by the time I turn 70... In reference to the newly implementd replays, it makes me think on one event involving the team that later became yours...that was, of course, the Washington Senators. Frank Howard used to hit some of the most towering and longest homers in the bigs. I think the only reason they couldnt measure them better is because RFK stadium was so closed up, but some, I swear, were still rising when they hit the upper deck seats. Well I saw him (live) hit a real towering one down the line once, that went over so far above the top of the foul pole that the poor umpire could only give it his best shot at a call. he called it fair and a home run, and i don't need to describe to you how the pitcher erupted. But in that case, I bet that even a replay wouldn't have settled it.

I know someone who left Bloomington at that time, but you can't be him if you left then, because he came up to Indy where i saw a lot of him during my apprentice corps year. I don't think you are belittling Kristen at all. Whether it was God working in her heart, or her better judgement, it was eclipsed by having to do what God says, which in her case was what the man of God said. From her point of view, saying no to staying in, or specifically to what she was told to do, was walking away from God.

Of course at any given level...big leagues down to the kids...each umpire's strike zone is going to be at least a little different. But when you work with kids of varying ages (9 to teens) as I do, your strike zone HAS to be varied depending on which age group you are calling. Otherwise you could have a walking contest with some of the younger kids...like the time over 40 years ago my cousin's team won a game 7-3, despite having a no hitter pitched against them. I have seen much worse. I mean, not all the kids are at the level we just saw in the LLWS recently finished. Do those walking games ddrraaagggg.............. The late Ron Luciano wrote that the best argument a catcher can make to an umpire in the bigs is to threaten him with a long game. Once Luciano called consecutine borderline pitches balls, one low and one high. The cather didn't really argue, but told Luciano, "Listen, you've got to give me either the low strike or the high strike, or we're gonna be here all night."

Are you referring just to the strike zone, or to calls in general? And, either way, do you ever notice the umps erring in your favor?

Simon, they can do a lot better than that on computerized voices these days. Amazing (for example) how the computer voice sounds on our NOAA Weather radio these days. Makes me laugh at that monotone Enterprise computer voice when I watch old Star Trek reruns. Anyway, I bet they could put some real life like emotion in that tossing of Roger Clemens (or anybody). After all, I don't car how objective we are, umpires can't avoid a little "emphasis" here and there when we toss someone! :) By the way, while I'm here, I havent had much to cheer about this season, but those Indians are finally getting hot..not that it means much this late. And Cliff Lee is now 19-2.

No kidding... Tom, I think your good friend was acknowledging that right at the start! I'm glad that means you didn't have to force yourself to be my fellow taxman. (inside remark).

Well is "internet privacy" an oxymoron?

Ha, I guess that space station isn't really orbitins; must be hanging like a pendulum and swinging back and forth...

I think we can learn from the attitudes of these people going through this...in case we ever have to do the same, or know someone well who does. To avoid the rocky road, so to speak.

Good point, WW...after all nothing has been proven in a court of law, so it is all just speculation...