Jump to content

Schoop hit a three run homer last night and everyone missed it.


sportsfan8703

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 36
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I thought the same thing, but I spoke with a friend who has been to the rogers centre a few times and he said that the 2nd deck is a couple rows beyond the fence. If he is right, then that would be quite impressive to have the ball come back around and hit the wall.

Here is a decent picture that might make things clearer (but its still hard to tell and this is a few years old as Nelson Cruz is still an oriole):

rogers-centre.jpg

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The flight of the ball clearly changes direction around that second row of bunting. I'm not so sure that it hit the facade though...it may have taken a funny, straight down, glance off of a railing. It even looks like it may have glanced off a railing on the lower set of seats as it was coming down. 

 

When the ball hits the base of the wall it should have bounced back towards the infield with more force if it did this off the fly. Instead, the ball kind of dribbles when it lands there. It clearly struck something higher.

 

I believe that when Abraham Zapruder releases his footage we will have a much clearer view of what really happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, it must be an optical illusion.   Because it clearly hits the ground almost exactly at the wall.   If it had hit the front of the higher deck and came forward, couldn't have landed so close to the wall on the ground, because that deck is clearly set back a ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, SteveA said:

Yeah, it must be an optical illusion.   Because it clearly hits the ground almost exactly at the wall.   If it had hit the front of the higher deck and came forward, couldn't have landed so close to the wall on the ground, because that deck is clearly set back a ways.

It isn't set as far back where Schoop's ball hit. His ball hit to the right of that ACER sign, just to the left of the batters eye. Plus a fan reacts in the stands like they are trying to turn away from the ball. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




  • Posts

    • Just did a bit of a walk. Some decently large braches down, one segment of privacy fence missing and standing water on the property in a low spot.  
    • Just woke up and I don't hear any wind or rain.
    • Not that I am in any way full agreement, but this is a classic post.  Doesn't Machado play chess?  Maybe we could get some chess boards in the clubhouse and junk all the legos.  Not all great baseball men are John McGraw bad asses.  Some can be Christy Mathewsons as well, I suppose.  Not that I imagine today's young players much resembling McGraw or Mathewson, but they are the first two contrasting old school types that come to mind.  I will say just based on his postseason alone I'd much rather have Tatis over Machado.
    • Well I refuse to believe that only the O's have no players that want extensions.
    • Customer advocate groups have tried for decades to force the cable companies to allow channel by channel (a la carte) subscriptions, but the cable companies fought this because it would result in far less revenue (than forcing us to pay for a hundred channels we don't watch).  The government refused to intervene, so we've been stuck with the existing business model for all this time.  Streaming is forcing the change because streaming -- for now -- is an a la carte model.   MLB's fear must be this: if the regional sports network cable channel model goes away, will most users pay anywhere close to what these channels made as part of a cable bundle for just one streaming channel where all you watch are Orioles games (or maybe Orioles and Nats games -- whatever the case may be)?  So if you pay $100/month for cable with MASN, you are probably watching at least a few other channels too.  But will you pay $15/month (or whatever the price may be) just to watch the Orioles -- even during the months when there is no baseball?  The existing basic cable model has been quite stable because people tend to watch at least 5 or 6 channels.  They're reluctant to cancel their whole cable package just because baseball season is over -- or they've been too busy to watch many games this season.  But with a single streaming channel of just baseball there is bound to be a far more unstable revenue base.  All the streaming channels are already dealing with this problem.  I think MLB is maybe reluctant to go all in on streaming for this reason.  Perhaps they're looking for new different model that could allow them to bundle individual team channels with Netflix, or Prime, or maybe with your cell phone plan or something else.  This could give them some stability, but it could also be a turn off for the more hardcore fans who just want the Orioles and little else.  It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out and if MLB, and the Orioles, will prosper or suffer as a result.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...