44 years later...
 

I was watching MLB Network's showing of the 1965 WS Game 7, where Koufax threw a complete game shutout on 2 days' rest.

Most of the differences between then and now were mechanical, like the funny way umpires called outs and safes and how U2 was always outside the diamond. And of course, the plate guy was from the AL and wore a balloon and all the umpires wore coats and ties. And U1 always called plays on the run and was really, really close at first base.

The one difference in how the game was played/called that struck me was the handling of the check swing. It appears that back then the criteria for a swing was "if the plate umpire thought he swung" and the guy on the plate last night used "if he didn't go all the way around, it wasn't a swing."

One batter, on two consecutive pitches, offered (2009 interpretation) and the plate guy called the pitches balls. No complaining, no gestures, no nothing. Koufax simply got the ball back and prepared to throw his next pitch. Which, in that game, was 90% likely to be a fastball that he blew past everyone.

Oh, and Vin Scully was on the game, and he was just as good then as he is now, 44 years later.

Rich did you notice anything different about the zone back then vs. today's zone? In watching games from years past it seems as though they called a higher strike and also below the knee as compared to today.

Pete Booth

That series permanently hooked me on the game and introduced me to two of my lifelong baseball heroes, Harmon Killebrew and Don Drysdale.

It is indeed interesting to see how the game differed years ago. It seems that back before the 1970s the umps considered a checked swing to be anything other than an obvious, all-the-way-around cut. From the 1965 series, also note that the top of the zone was several inches higher. What was rightly or wrongly called "the letters" was a strike, and a fastball there from Koufax was practically impossible to hit.

Some people claim the last strike to Mickey Owen in Larsen's perfect game (1956) was high, but stop motion clearly shows that he offered anyway (at least by today's standards). From the 1959 series, I captured a stop-frame of Jim Landis obviously offering on a 3-2 pitch and then bringing the bat back. But again, ball 4 without a peep from the defense.

The umps also called strikes as quickly as possible, as if the goal was to get the arm in the air before the pitch hit the mitt. Immediate out calls, too, with a lot of reversals on dropped balls.

From the "old" days you will also see runners 10 feet out of the baseline throwing body blocks on infielders to break up double plays. From the 1940s, you see infielders throwing their gloves onto the outfield grass after the third out, too. And sometimes the catchers are practically standing straight up as the pitch is delivered, moving down only after the pitch is on the way.

And well into the 1960s the first-base ump often squeezed in between the coach and the bag, as if the best spot from which to call plays at 1B was two feet from F3.

The zone was higher, just as low, and certainly a nice big corner on the outside. What I noticed mainly, was that everyone swung at the high fastball. Otherwise they'd be taking a strike.

Pitching and umpiring are different. High pitches are considered mistakes (by everyone) and timing, angle, and distance seem to be things that only started to be taught with the advent of the modern umpire schools, although the Denkinger missed call looked a lot like how every call was made at first in this series.

The plate guy was Ed Hurley, working his final game in the big leagues. He came up in 1947 and appeared on What's My Line during the 1953 World Series. He was also the plate guy when the midget Eddie Goedel batter for Bill Veeck and the St. Louis Browns.

Even today, coaches believe that the best angle to call the play at 1st base is from either coaching box.

Wait just a gosh darn minute......
 

Are you guys telling me that in a previous era, a pitch that doesn't go belt high, right down the heart of the plate in an imaginary box that's maybe 3" x 3" is actually called a strike? Shocked I tell ya! Shocked I am! ;)

Trivia alert!

The MLB logo features the profile of Harmon Killebrew.

http://www.google.com/images?q=tbn:h...s/mlb_logo.gif

Given my experience last night, apparently that's true of 2nd base as well. :rolleyes:

That's a myth. The logo was designed in the 60's by Jerry Dior and nobody has ever specifically been identified by MLB or Dior as a model.

Dior claims he had no model and the silhouette was of no one in particular. Look here:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122453063968851133.html

The NBA silhouette logo was created to look like this one and that one was modeled after a player -- Jerry West.

Sure he's going to say that. If he didn't, Killebrew's heirs would be suing for a cut. :D

A cut of what? MLB hasn't even acknowledged he did the art work. (Maybe they have by now.)

If you are looking for an interesting read on the subject of the MLB logo, one of the Page 2 writers for ESPN.com did a peice on it here: Uni Watch: Intelligent design - ESPN Page 2

It is part of column he writes called Uni-Watch. It is rather interesting, and fun to read. Here is also a column on Ump Unis: ESPN.com: Page 2 : Uni eye for the ump guy

Hmmm....I guess he never met the folks on this forum.:cool:

It's funny how easily some are led to believe what they believe.

Huh,
 

Why wouldn't Harmon himself be suing?

Yeah, come to think of it, why are they burying him so soon?:confused:

My Uni Watch membership card is hung on my office file cabinet -- by my Uni Watch magnet, naturally.

My number on the roster is the same as on my umpire shirts -- 7. However, my card is done in Philadelphia Flyers home black.

http://www.uniwatchblog.com/?page_id=500

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2295/...50db55.jpg?v=0

Really. He's only 72 years old.

Not a lawyer, but if he's an employee of MLB, MLB could probably use any player image they wish to market their product...so I don't think he'd be entitled to any type of royalty since it's not really intellectual property...but who knows.

I'm pretty sure that this is incorrect. The players work for MLB, but are not owned by MLB. Slavery was outlawed during the Lincoln administration.

It would depend on what's in the contract.

This thread has led me to look up Harmon Killerbrews web site where I found the following quote.

"The homers he hit against us would be homers in any park, including Yellowstone."
-- manager Paul Richards

Gotta luv it.

How would they know? I can't remember the last time a coach actually spent much time inside one of those boxes.

You could be right...but they under the governing body of MLB...can't MLB use whatever pictures/video clips/etc...to market their product?

It's not a slavery thing...at least that's not how I'm seeing it.

If the commissioner can suspend a player, there certainly are rules that players must follow under league policies, there is an employer/employee relationship. Yes, they get paid by the teams...but the league still has some say over the player's actions.

Consider Dante Stallworth & Michael Vick. The league suspended them. Consider Manny. The league suspended Manny, not the Dodgers.

Maybe other posters are right, I'm not saying I'm right or wrong...but if it's his image, since he was employed by MLB, if that's the contractual agreement, then they can use the image...but I think another poster said that it's not Harmon, but a sillouette not resembling any player.

I would suspect that in the MLB Players Union contract there are terms where there is some type of revenue split for licensing pictures and the like for current & former players. I'm not sure exactly how this pays out (IE: pool shared by all &/or ??) but it's common for pro leagues.

Several former NFL players are suing the NFL & players union over something similar. Don't recall the exact details now but it seems they are not receiving the correct payment for using their likenesses in video games, etc.

I knew the AL once wore red jackets, makes sense they would be the ones to try white suits too. :D

And jeez, Bruce, don't you travel with more than one pair of plate pants? ;)

You can tell this author is biased against umpires (who isn't?). He said Froemming "pathetically" kicked the dirt off the plate the rest of the game. So what? The foot-brush works just fine, and I'm sure he didn't look pathetic doing it.

I don't think it's possible for Froemming to look pathetic doing anything on the field.

On the field, Froemming looked pathetic just squeezing that load into an umpire uniform.

Off the field he looked beyond pathetic when he called an umpire adminstrator a "Jew b!tch."

That's really not very nice. People come in all shapes and sizes, and it's no better fat-bashing than it is to criticize any other physical attributes. Give me your bio and I'll find something to bash you about.

Like it or not, it's true.

Why do you think none of the newer MLB umps are fat? Why do you think that chubby MiLB umps are told to lose weight?

The perception of both the public and MLB is that fat, grossly obese umpires look terrible, lazy and less competent that those with athletic frames.

The days of Froemming fatasses are over. Just a fact of life.

Edited to add:

Your attemp to include the obese with the truly disabled is sad. A parapalegic can't grow new limbs. An obese umpire can lose weight. Haven't you?

Steve's in a battle with weight that I am familiar with. He's winning it and he will win it. He will deserve all the credit in the world when he wins it, because it's extremely difficult.

And another battle he's winning is the one where he questioned your fair-mindedness and compassion as a human being. You obviously have very little room in your narrow existence for certain people, just because they don't fit your superior mold.

You know what that's called, right?

There's an umpire around here who doesn't move well due to weight and injuries. He sees everything, gets great angles, has superior knowledge and is flat-out better at umpiring than most of us who move well and wear off-the-rack sizes.

It's as rude and narrow-minded to be exclusive of certain umpires due to appearance as it is in other walks of life.

The best quote I ever heard on this: "He's narrow-minded, but at least he leaves room for himself."

Obesity is one of the main criterion to qualify for Social Security Disability, so it most definitely is a true disability. Many people are genetically disposed to being heavy. Fortunately for me, I am not. I just loved to eat too much, and can lose weight. It is much harder for many people who would just love to be thin. They exercise and eat right, but still can't lose any significant weight. Research the subject before judging others for their weight problems.

I'l be sure to mention that to the professional evaluators. I'm sure they'll see the error of their ways.:rolleyes:

Completely understand. Still, they won't make it in professional umpiring. That's my point, and despite your emotional attachment to your argument, it is a fact.

No, I believe the point you were making is that you don't like fat people very much, and think less of them as people than you do skinny, scrawny, semi-anorexic people, or people with Greek god-like physiques.

"Your attemp to include the obese with the truly disabled is sad"

"The days of Froemming fatasses are over. Just a fact of life."

and this fallacial assessment:

"The perception of both the public and MLB is that fat, grossly obese umpires look terrible, lazy and less competent that those with athletic frames."

That might be MLB's perception because they have an image to uphold. That's perfectly understandable. The public, however, is used to seeing fat umpires because the population in general is overweight to begin with, and many local amateur umpires, and some of the best umpires in MLB history were fat guys. And Froemming was far from grossly obese. Eric Gregg, yes, but Bruce was just a chubby guy. He could stomp your a$$ in a 50 yard dash any day of the week when he was in his 40's, fat and all. Skinny people would challenge him, and he would whoop them every time.

I'm a big guy. Not a big tub of goo, but stocky and muscular to go along with my pot belly. I get around the field as good as any skinny young umpire I've ever seen. I always beat the BR into the infield from A, beat the BR to third on a naked triple from A, and when I go out from A, I am standing at home plate before the BR gets to 3rd base. I have no problem getting around, and anybody's perception of me is irrelevant. They see me run my a$s off, and I never hear about how fat I am, just "good hustle, Blue."

Dale Mitchell was the last batter in Larsen's '56 gem.

Your prejudice applies to the lower levels also, and society as well.

And, of course, narrow-mindedness is rather insidious, because it affects reading comprehension, as it does in your case.

There are great people in all sizes. People who aren't prejudiced are the lucky ones, because they see the good in a great many more people and are more caring and giving and honorable and respectable. You should try it. You only get this one life.

And what is the peculiarity of yours that make the other narrow-minded and prejudiced people readily mock you? You need to expand your mind so you can think about that one before you hurl your next insensitive remark about overweight people.

I'm not going to hold my breath, but some people like you eventually see the err of their ways.

"And the ball gets away from Mickey Owen!"

Uncaught third strike with two outs. Allowed the Yankees inning to continue. Yankees went on to win.

Different game though.

Can you imagine going through life with the memory of your passed ball blowing the World Series?

The only people that don't notice are small children. I've dropped 80 pounds in the last 2 years and my kid couldn't possibly care or notice - which I think is great, BTW.

The people that notice and judge by a person's size have been conditioned by society and Hollywood that only thin, beautiful people are of any value, and that you are worthless if you don't fit into their pigeonholed, narrow view of life. Little children have not yet been indoctrinated, until they hear children being teased on the playground, then it's all over. I was always a skinny person until into my mid-30s. I remember teasing my fat friend when I was a teenager, and I'm ashamed now of how insensitive I was.

This says it all about prejudice. Give this man a cheroot!

Dale Mitchell was the last batter in Larsen's '56 gem.

Yes, of course. My obvious mistake.

Mickey Owen no doubt felt bad, but he really had nothing to be ashamed of. Tommy Henrich missed that spitball from Hugh Casey by 2 feet; it was both unhittable and uncatchable. (Officially, the pitch was a "curve.")

Mickey Owen died in 2005 at age 89.
High Casey killed himself with a shotgun in 1951 at age 37.
Tommy Henrich is still alive at 96.

I'll take an egg white with fat free cheddar and canadian bacon omelet alongside 2 pieces of lite bread covered with homemade apple butter. 5 points. 6 if I have my coffee with half-n-half with it.

And yet he somehow commanded respect from players and managers. There must have been some other qualities he had.

I agree, not a good decision. You never said something offensive that you later regretted?

Thatta boy!!