Good evening, and welcome to Reading Comprehension 101. The use of the word "some," as in the phrase, "some of the difference," logically precludes attribution of total cause and any subsequent accusations of mental retardation. Sabathia got jobbed on a handful of calls. Whatever. It's part of the game. He should deal with it. But when you're not getting calls for clearly good pitches, it can affect you. He didn't have his best stuff, but the ump didn't make it easy on him, either.
Yeah, the 7 bad calls out of his 118 pitches really must have thrown him off... Your entire argument is pathetic and retarded. Sabathia didn't have great command, he gave up too many hits, and Beckett was brilliant. It has nothing to do with umpiring whatsoever. You want to use that as an excuse, but it just doesn't hold up. Beckett had just about as many pitches in the strike zone called balls as Sabathia did, and it didn't seem to affect him any...
I agree Sabathia did get robbed on a couple of calls, but it goes to show you how good he is that he allowed only one run (fine two if you count the base obstruction or whatever the fuck it was). A good portion of those 16 runners left on were when Sabathia was pitching. This game falls on the offense, Sabathia pitched well enough to put us in a position to get some runs which never happened
It'd be helpful if you actually were able to state what my argument was before calling it pathetic and/or retarded. Nice to see your straw man building skills haven't gotten rusty, though. Sabathia got robbed on a handful of calls. A couple were at key points in the game. You're allegedly someone who plays baseball. You should know that a few key calls at key points in a game can make a difference. Maybe it's not 118 pitches if he gets some of those. Maybe it is. Who knows? The point is, what I said was not factually incorrect... you just wanted to make it more than it was. And - again - it's not all of the difference. I never said Sabathia pitched as well as Beckett, nor did I imply it. All I said (in response to Yisman's comment that it was a one-sided pitcher's duel) was that the ump was responsible for some of that difference. And he was. I'm sorry if activates your inner cunt, but next time, why don't you try to argue against a position I actually hold instead of making one up. Here's the original post: "The ump was also a little one-sided. That explains some of the difference." You, sir, need to chill the fuck out.
Yes, it was. Beckett had calls go against him too, and as I said earlier, the only truly awful call in the game took away a run for Boston. No one who saw this game could say, honestly and objectively, that it was one sided in favor of Beckett in terms of umpiring. ETA: In fact, after looking, Sabathia also got at least two calls given to him of the plate (one more is close but I can't tell on my phone if it is out or not so I didn't count it) while Beckett had zero pitches outside the zone called strikes. That makes up for the two more missed strike calls he had. The umpiring was dead even in terms of balls and strikes, not one sided at all.
1. I'm not seeing how two called strikes that are basically on the black "make up" for missed calls four inches inside the zone. 2. You're still ignoring the context of those missed calls and just counting number of missed calls. If the calls were correct, I doubt Sabathia labors nearly as much... Which does explain part of the difference in performance. 3. My point about needing to chill the fuck out remains. I don't think it's that big of a deal. I made a comment about the ump during a baseball game. The horror!
