Comments on: Hamels Struggles Getting the Best of Him

By: dad

dad — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 07:55:23 +0000

cman cole… keep pounding the corner, get him to chase one outside

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 05:22:36 +0000

Yeah, Hamels is a real bargain at $8million a year. ROI = 10-11 with a 4.32 ERA. That’s mediocre at best. Second, Hamels’ season ends when the Phillies season ends. Not before, not after. Give me a break, don’t defend his self-centered bullshit.

By: j reed

j reed — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:11:35 +0000

chuckS – yeah Blanton is more than capable to keep the game winnable. I paniced last night and thought Lee thinking Lee could go on three day rest two times in a row. Not that he couldn’t but never has….the “never has side” of the equation is an unknown and quite a gamble

By: Mike Schmidt

Mike Schmidt — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 01:09:14 +0000

I read the comments on phight blog, but nobody is stating it the way I am stating it. Gerry Davis said they do not control the cameras so they made the ground rule. They do control the cameras that is what instant replay is.
Instant replay=control of cameras
Rule is illegal.

By: Mike Schmidt

Mike Schmidt — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:54:29 +0000

Thanks J reed will check. I’m just surprised MLB isn’t getting this call right. Its contradictory. Controlling cameras because they don’t have control over cameras.

By: chuckS

chuckS — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:50:08 +0000

With all the debate over starting Joe tonight over a short rested Cliff i have a simple question. If Cliff started tonight who would pitch tommorrow?

By: j reed

j reed — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:39:51 +0000

Schmidt on the Good Phight Blog there are some interesting points made about this subject in the comment section of last night’s game recap. scroll about half way down the page. Also another contradiction involves fan interference. If the umps are allowed to make rule before the game then that rule shouldn’t contradict or dispute another established rule which in this case could be fan interference rule.

By: j reed

j reed — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:31:31 +0000

Andrew don’t tell me that even if he were available you’d put moyer out there to face the Yankees…maybe he earned it but that would be disasterous….that said if Happ hadn’t reinjured his oblique, I’d be all for Happ and benching Hamels. Since he re-injured it he hasn’t had any good outings and has in the post season thrown himself in batter’s counts way too many times. Granted Hamels has been horrid but as far as we know is health hasn’t been compromised. Happ’s stuff looks flat, lacks finish and any bite. However if we get to a game seven I’d go Happ over Hamels. That’s a no brainer at this point. As to getting rid of Hamels just because his value is high is short sighted unless you get an offer you can’t refuse. What do you think we can get in return?

By: Mike Schmidt

Mike Schmidt — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:31:30 +0000

The reasoning behind the ground rule is only valid when the umps do not have access to instant replay. If they do not have access to instant replay they cannot control what the camerman does. If they do have access to instant replay they can control what the cameraman does by checking the instant replay to make the correct call. Because the reasoning behind the ground rule was invalid the ground rule is illegal, because they used instant replay to uphold it, a clear contradiction.

By: Mike Schmidt

Mike Schmidt — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 00:18:03 +0000

The ground rule that the umps made up is inconsistent with having instant replay. The rule states that any ball hitting a camera is a home run because the umps do not control the camerman. That is only true when the umps do not have instant replay. Because the umps have instant replay their reasoning behind the ground rule is a lie and the ground rule is illegal.