Quote:
Originally posted by johnSandlin
Garth,
If you are going to go back and refer to what people say, then make sure you have it acurate of what they said. Garth, it does not look good on your part to refer to something that was never said.
In regards to the pitching rule in major league baseball Garth, I never said that a major league umpire told me that after one pitcher hits three batters, he has to be removed. I stated that I "read" that somewhere in the rulebook. When actually, I was reading something else in the rulebook and get it messed up with pitching rules.
|
You are correct. I was unsure how you quoted that "rule", which is why I phrased it as a question. I have since seen that instead of quoting an umpire stating that a pitcher must be removed after hitting three batters, you credited the rule book. Sorry for the mistake.
However, could you now tell me where else in the rule book you found this rule that you got "messed up" with the pitching rules?
Quote:
|
And the other comment that I made in regards to Angel Hernandez was in SI earlier this year. All that happened there is, I got the names out of line.
|
Now you appear to be fudging, John. Let's look at the record. First you posted:
"I have no opinion to offer for the first part of the game. You are correct about MLB assigning the best officials for the post season. Angel has been touted as one of the top respected umpires in MLB for the last four to five years with having the honor of working the World Series last year."
When asked for a reference for those four or five years of top ratings, you posted:
"I read an article about a month in Sports Illustrated about players, managers, and front office people rating the MLB staff. According to this data, Hernandez was ranked among the worst umpires in the eyes of the players and managers.
"But, Hernandez was ranked among the best and most respected umpires in MLB."
Again, you were asked for your source on this claim and you ignored the request.
Now you say you misread the order of listings in one SI article this year. What about the other four years, John?
[QUOTE]In closing, Garth I find it very interesting that you, like to come out and crucify other members for things that say that may be incorrect and that is okay, but if we in turn do not agree with something you have said and we say something about it, then that is not alright.
If you and other members of this post, such has Rich are so "perfect" in your officiating information, then I can safely assume that the both of you are officiating at the "professional" level currently on a full time basis. [QUOTE]
I think you've gone a little overboard with your Biblical comparison's John. No one has "crucified" you. And when you disagreed with my assertion and asked for a reference, I sent it to you immediately, right?
No one has claimed to be "perfect". And whatever you assume, you do so at your own peril.
Rich merely asserted an opinion. He was then castigated for having one. I then gave my opinion, or guess, as to why Rich may have said we he did. And your current post continues to confirm to me what I said; and that is the manner in which you portray yourself: what you post, how you post it and your habit of making strange claims that cannot be verified and that you later walk away from, is not that which is usually associated with an experienced trainer whom rookies flock to watch.
Tell me, how many experienced trainers, no matter what the alleged source, would expound that in major league baseball three hit batters would require the pitcher to leave the game? How many folks do you know would read one year's SI survey and extrapolate "four or five years" of data and results?
C'mon John. You could be the best umpire in Michigan. You might be everything you claim to be. But if you are, you have to be able to see that your posts don't do you justice.