Rooting for the Nats because it probably pisses off Angelos

[Redskins Rick]

I dont follow the Nats, I wish them well and would have loved a parkway series but oh well.

From a fiscal point of view, their success brings in extra tax money to the feds, state and local budgets

[webbrick2010]

9 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The Nats were 78-35 when Wieters started, 19-27 when he didn't, so I doubt they'll DFA him and eat $12 mm.    I'm not saying he's the reason they won when he played, just that he didn't materially hurt them so I doubt they'll eat his contract.   

That said, I didn't see the inning where Wieters had his defensive miscues.    The Nats could play "what if" with this game for the next 25 years.    So many of the Cubs' runs scored on fluky plays, and then Lobaton gets picked off after a lengthy replay review to kill a rally when Davis looked to be falling apart.    I'm glad I'm not a die-hard Nats fan; that's a tough loss to live down.   

The Nats want to win a WS. They will look to improve in any area of weakness, and Wieters is a weakness

You can't put a game on one player.... but if Wieters doesn't have a passed ball (on a strike 3), a throwing error directly scoring a run, and a catchers interference in the same inning than the Nats are in the NLCS. I'm sure folks in the Nats front office will be thinking the same thing. I think Wieters will be "Cundiffed".

[Number5]

8 minutes ago, Frobby said:

The Nats were 78-35 when Wieters started, 19-27 when he didn't, so I doubt they'll DFA him and eat $12 mm.    I'm not saying he's the reason they won when he played, just that he didn't materially hurt them so I doubt they'll eat his contract.   

That said, I didn't see the inning where Wieters had his defensive miscues.    The Nats could play "what if" with this game for the next 25 years.    So many of the Cubs' runs scored on fluky plays, and then Lobaton gets picked off after a lengthy replay review to kill a rally when Davis looked to be falling apart.    I'm glad I'm not a die-hard Nats fan; that's a tough loss to live down.   

Did they give Wieters a passed ball on that?  Tough pitch.  I thought it could have just as easily been scored a wild pitch.  Wieters also got hit in the head by the bat on the back swing.  The announcers thought he was telling the ump it was a foul ball, but he was questioning whether his being hit by the bat constituted interference on the play.  It isn't interference on a play like that, since the batter did nothing out of the ordinary to cause Wieters to be struck by the bat, but that was the discussion, not whether it was a foul ball.  I'm surprised the Nationals' trainer didn't come out to make sure Wieters was OK.  His decision to throw to first was certainly questionable, since the batter/runner was nearly to first when he let go of the throw.  The catchers interference occurred shortly thereafter.  I have to wonder if Wieters may have been just a bit groggy.

[Redskins Rick]

2 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Did they give Wieters a passed ball on that?  Tough pitch.  I thought it could have just as easily been scored a wild pitch.  Wieters also got hit in the head by the bat on the back swing.  The announcers thought he was telling the ump it was a foul ball, but he was questioning whether his being hit by the bat constituted interference on the play.  It isn't interference on a play like that, since the batter did nothing out of the ordinary to cause Wieters to be struck by the bat, but that was the discussion, not whether it was a foul ball.  I'm surprised the Nationals' trainer didn't come out to make sure Wieters was OK.  His decision to throw to first was certainly questionable, since the batter/runner was nearly to first when he let go of the throw.  The catchers interference occurred shortly thereafter.  I have to wonder if Wieters may have been just a bit groggy.

From MASN:

Quote

 

“I think most of the mistakes were me,” Matt Wieters said.

Wieters was hardly the only one to blame, but the veteran catcher certainly was front and center during a debacle of a fifth inning that turned a 4-3 lead into a 7-4 deficit. During one brutal stretch of an inning that saw Max Scherzer (pitching in relief for the first time since the 2013 postseason with Detroit) allow seven consecutive batters reach base, Wieters was charged with a passed ball, a throwing error and catcher’s interference.

“I’m surprised with how I played,” he said. “It’s a bad time to have one of my worst defensive nights of my career. We still had a shot all the way to the end, but yeah, it’ll be a little while to get over some of the balls that I normally make that I didn’t make tonight.”

 

 

[Number5]

1 minute ago, Redskins Rick2 said:

From MASN:

 

As I said, the decision to throw was very questionable.  The catchers interference that occurred soon thereafter was an odd play and he was certainly guilty.  What I was saying is that I have to wonder if getting hit on the noggin by the bat may have had anything to do with it.  I wasn't questioning that the misplays occurred.

[Redskins Rick]

Just now, Number5 said:

As I said, the decision to throw was very questionable.  The catchers interference that occurred soon thereafter was an odd play and he was certainly guilty.  What I was saying is that I have to wonder if getting hit on the noggin by the bat may have had anything to do with it.  I wasn't questioning that the misplays occurred.

I cant disagree with you, I feel bad for Wieters, and I dont believe he will be tagged like Bill Buckner, since it wasnt the world series, or for Baltimore fans, like Todd Zeile's idiot thrown into the grown in the ALCS.

[Fuzzball22]

6 minutes ago, Number5 said:

Did they give Wieters a passed ball on that?  Tough pitch.  I thought it could have just as easily been scored a wild pitch.  Wieters also got hit in the head by the bat on the back swing.  The announcers thought he was telling the ump it was a foul ball, but he was questioning whether his being hit by the bat constituted interference on the play.  It isn't interference on a play like that, since the batter did nothing out of the ordinary to cause Wieters to be struck by the bat, but that was the discussion, not whether it was a foul ball.  I'm surprised the Nationals' trainer didn't come out to make sure Wieters was OK.  His decision to throw to first was certainly questionable, since the batter/runner was nearly to first when he let go of the throw.  The catchers interference occurred shortly thereafter.  I have to wonder if Wieters may have been just a bit groggy.

The announcers really dropped the ball (no pun intended) on what Weiters was complaining about. Watched MLB tonight and there was a lot of discussion on if the ball should have been dead after Weiters got hit. Seems to me it should have been from a common sense perspective. What if that bat had hit him hard enough to knock him out? Not a Nats fan and was actually rooting for the Cubs but the call on the slide at second to break up the double play could have easily been ruled an out.

[OFFNY]

1 hour ago, Frobby said:

 

The Nationals were 78-35 when Wieters started, 19-27 when he didn't, so I doubt they'll DFA him and eat $12 mm. I'm not saying he's the reason they won when he played, just that he didn't materially hurt them so I doubt they'll eat his contract.   

That said, I didn't see the inning where Wieters had his defensive miscues. The Nationals could play "what if" with this game for the next 25 years. So many of the Cubs' runs scored on fluky plays, and then Lobaton gets picked off after a lengthy replay review to kill a rally when Davis looked to be falling apart. I'm glad I'm not a die-hard Nats fan; that's a tough loss to live down.   

 

 

 

1 hour ago, webbrick2010 said:

 

The Nationals want to win a World Series. They will look to improve in any area of weakness, and Wieters is a weakness.

You can't put a game on one player ...... but if Wieters doesn't have a passed ball (on a strike 3), a throwing error directly scoring a run, and a catchers interference in the same inning than the Nationals are in the NLCS. I'm sure folks in the Nats front office will be thinking the same thing. I think Wieters will be "Cundiffed."

 

o

 

Yes, the Nationals have wanted to win a World Series since 2012, but have not managed to get beyond the NLDS since then. 

 

If the Nationals had not blown a 2-run lead with 2 outs in the 9th inning of the 2012 NLDS, they would have advanced to that season's NLCS.

If the Nationals had scored more than 1 run in an 18-inning game (at home) against the Giants in Game Two of the 2014 NLDS, they might well have advanced to that season's NLCS.

If the Max Scherzer, Marc Rzepczynski, Blake Treinen, Sammy Solis, and Shawn Kelley had not collectively folded in the 7th inning of the 5th and deciding game of the 2016 NLDS, they would have advanced to that season's NLCS.

 

If, if, if ........ if the Nationals rid themselves of the choking and inept Matt Wieters, they will certainly be better prepared to win the World Series in 2018.

 

o

[Il BuonO]

1 hour ago, Number5 said:

Did they give Wieters a passed ball on that?  Tough pitch.  I thought it could have just as easily been scored a wild pitch.  Wieters also got hit in the head by the bat on the back swing.  The announcers thought he was telling the ump it was a foul ball, but he was questioning whether his being hit by the bat constituted interference on the play.  It isn't interference on a play like that, since the batter did nothing out of the ordinary to cause Wieters to be struck by the bat, but that was the discussion, not whether it was a foul ball.  I'm surprised the Nationals' trainer didn't come out to make sure Wieters was OK.  His decision to throw to first was certainly questionable, since the batter/runner was nearly to first when he let go of the throw.  The catchers interference occurred shortly thereafter.  I have to wonder if Wieters may have been just a bit groggy.

This is not entirely correct. 

Rule 6.06

”If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpires judgement unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.”

The ball should have been called dead.

And the interference (or contact) was before he made the throw, not after.

[JR Oriole]

Wieters has been historically bad in the playoffs from an offensive perspective. In 48 plate appearances, he has one extra base hit (a double, five years ago), five hits total, zero RBI, and an unbelievably bad slash line that actually got better because of last night's 2 hit performance.  Amazing to think that even his defense fell apart last night.

[spiritof66]

4 minutes ago, JR Oriole said:

Wieters has been historically bad in the playoffs from an offensive perspective. In 48 plate appearances, he has one extra base hit (a double, five years ago), five hits total, zero RBI, and an unbelievably bad slash line that actually got better because of last night's 2 hit performance.  Amazing to think that even his defense fell apart last night.

And let's not even get started on his pitch framing. ?

[Il BuonO]

9 minutes ago, spiritof66 said:

And let's not even get started on his pitch framing. ?

Wieters never got started on his pitch framing either.

[Redskins Rick]

47 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

 

 

o

 

Yes, the Nationals have wanted to win a World Series since 2012, but have not managed to get beyond the NLDS since then. 

 

If the Nationals had not blown a 2-run lead with 2 outs in the 9th inning of the 2012 NLDS, they would have advanced to that season's NLCS.

If the Nationals had scored more than 1 run in an 18-inning game (at home) against the Giants in Game Two of the 2014 NLDS, they might well have advanced to that season's NLCS.

If the Max Scherzer, Marc Rzepczynski, Blake Treinen, Sammy Solis, and Shawn Kelley had not collectively folded in the 7th inning of the 5th and deciding game of the 2016 NLDS, they would have advanced to that season's NLCS.

 

If, if, if ........ if the Nationals rid themselves of the choking and inept Matt Wieters, they will certainly be better prepared to win the World Series in 2018.

 

o

Roy,

 

I respect your opinion, well, usually.

I refuse to call Wieters Inept.

Baseballs is a game of inches and breaks.

Like Frobby posted:

Quote

The Nationals were 78-35 when Wieters started, 19-27

Thats not ineptness.

 

[Number5]

3 minutes ago, Il BuonO said:

This is not entirely correct. 

Rule 6.06

”If a batter strikes at a ball and misses and swings so hard he carries the bat all the way around and, in the umpires judgement unintentionally hits the catcher or the ball in back of him on the backswing before the catcher has securely held the ball, it shall be called a strike only (not interference). The ball will be dead, however, and no runner shall advance on the play.”

The ball should have been called dead.

And the interference (or contact) was before he made the throw, not after.

No.  It looked like the ball was already past Wieters when he was struck by the bat.  It did not interfere with his opportunity to secure or block the ball, in my view.  The timing is whether it was before his opportunity to secure the ball, not when he makes the throw it after retrieving it.  In games I umpire, I would kill the play out of safety concern for the catcher, but I'm not umpiring games in which men are being paid to play.  My point was that it seems a bit harsh to blame Wieters  for losing the game, given that he was struck on the head by the bat.  I don't think the umpires erred on the play, however.  As I mentioned, I was surprised that the Nationals' trainer didn't come out to check on Wieters after the play as a precaution.  As someone else mentioned, the New York review that allowed the leg whip at second base to stand seemed to be more of an umpiring miss than this particular play, IMO.

[webbrick2010]

1 hour ago, Number5 said:

Did they give Wieters a passed ball on that?  Tough pitch.  I thought it could have just as easily been scored a wild pitch.  Wieters also got hit in the head by the bat on the back swing.  The announcers thought he was telling the ump it was a foul ball, but he was questioning whether his being hit by the bat constituted interference on the play.  It isn't interference on a play like that, since the batter did nothing out of the ordinary to cause Wieters to be struck by the bat, but that was the discussion, not whether it was a foul ball.  I'm surprised the Nationals' trainer didn't come out to make sure Wieters was OK.  His decision to throw to first was certainly questionable, since the batter/runner was nearly to first when he let go of the throw.  The catchers interference occurred shortly thereafter.  I have to wonder if Wieters may have been just a bit groggy.

You kidding? The ball went directly thru his legs on the fly. It didn't hit the ground until it was underneath him. It was the poster child for all passed balls. If he catches the ball its the third out and the Nats are only down 5-4, instead the inning continues until the Nats are down 7-4. It was a Billy Cundiff moment.