Why not? The stats don't lie. He's been as tough as nails in the post-season since he arrived on the major league scene. Sometimes overshadowed by Matt Cain or Tim Lincecum, but never under-appreciated by his teammates or the fans.
from Giants Extra:
POSTGAME NOTES: Forget retirement, Ishikawa is now making a push for another ring; Bumgarner slams Cardinals - Giants Extra:
I found this to be incredible: Bumgarner has made nine postseason starts for the Giants and four of them were shutouts (he went nine in one of the four). “You know, he’s so good at what he does,” Bochy said. “He executed all night against a tough lineup. He’s a guy that you want out there to start things and he gave us all we were asking.”
In the past week, I’ve heard a lot of Bumgarner’s teammates say they’re thrilled that he’s getting so much notice nationally. He’s now officially one of those guys, the Lesters and Verlanders and others with reputations for coming through in the postseason. (On a related note: Why does James Shields get the ‘Big Game’ nickname? Seems there are better options.)'via Blog this'
On this play with Kolten Wong, it went without mention by the genius commentators at Fox, but:
a) Wong was inside the baseline, not in the running lane where he belonged when the contact was initiated. If anything Wong is interfering with Bumgarner rather than Bummer obstructing Wong.
and
b) Perhaps if the Cardinals didn't waste the umpires time reviewing this play, they would have been more focused on what was going on ie: the phantom Bumgarner balk. Replay will never totally remove the human element from the game and it is not outside the realm of possibility that the crew was mentally replaying the prior play with Wong in their mind to prepare for the post-game analysis and commentary and just whiffed on the mini-balk when it snuck up on them.
And it was a balk, IMO. However, unless it was mysteriously ruled a three-run homer balk, the Cardinals still have no chance of coming back. So there.
http://m.mlb.com/video/v36795853/nlcs-gm1-bumgarner-nearly-balks-before-fanning-cruz
I get that these guys don't know the rules, and if Tim McCarver over the years wasn't proof positive enough, then Harold Reynolds spinning a web of rule book ignorance trying to explain the early inning drop / catch by the Cardinals RF should be the final straw. If you don't understand the definition of a catch, you have no business whatsoever trying to explain the rule book, much less question umpires judgment. And he spun himself a nice little 180 there BTW by trying to imply that the rule book was a bit tricky there. No Harold, the rule book is pretty black and white there, it's your understanding, or lack thereof, that is a bit sketchy. Nice try though.
Note to MLB: Do what the NFL does and have a rule book expert on stand-by for these "tricky" replay scenarios. It would help the credibility of the broadcast.
Nice picture of Ishakawa with the Eagle backdrop as well as a great back-story to yesterdays game and that being the story behind Ishakawa's last and likely final chance in this latest stint with the Giants. It goes to show that sometimes there is a thin line between success and "what might have been" in baseball. Good to see Ishakawa having this type of success.
BTW2: Did anyone else pick up on Verducci mentioning Romo and the persistent use of the slider by saying "you could wake him up from an afternoon nap" and he could throw that pitch? And how is that not at least a subliminally offensive comment given Romo's Mexican heritage? I mean, he didn't mention a pre-game nap or any old time of the day nap, but a siesta. Maybe Romo can wear a T-shirt to voice his displeasure. I hereby lodge a political correctness protest on Mr. Romo's behalf and demand an immediate apology from Fox Sports for the offensive comment against the Mexican-American community in general and Sergio Romo specifically.
For future reference (definition of a catch):
A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball. It is not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball which then hits a member of the offensive team or an umpire and then is caught by another defensive player. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.
Rule 2.00 (Catch) Comment: A catch is legal if the ball is finally held by any fielder, even though juggled, or held by another fielder before it touches the ground. Runners may leave their bases the instant the first fielder touches the ball. A fielder may reach over a fence, railing, rope or other line of demarcation to make a catch. He may jump on top of a railing, or canvas that may be in foul ground. No interference should 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.
If a fielder, attempting a catch at the edge of the dugout, is “held up” and kept from an apparent fall by a player or players of either team and the catch is made, it shall be allowed.
No comments:
Post a Comment