Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - Division Series: Sunday, October 5th, 2003

Division Series: Sunday, October 5th, 2003

Chicago Cubs at Atlanta, 7:30 PM ET (Game 5)

Great offence has made a comeback - evening up both this and the Oakland-Boston series. When Kerry Wood can't locate with his off-speed stuff, he tend to have problems. We saw him lose his release point in the 8th inning of Game One. Mike Hampton will have to navigate through a lineup that hits lefthanders very well and he'll be pitching on 3 days' rest. If I were a Braves fan, I'd wish Greg Maddux were starting this game.

Kerry Wood (2002/2003)
versus	AB	H	HR	TB	W	K	HBP	SB	CS	OBP	SLG	K pct	W pct
right	837	178	28	304	83	274	24	9	7	.302	.363	.290	.090
left	676	143	18	230	114	209	13	9	7	.336	.340	.260	.144

Kerry Wood is a pitcher who doesn't rely much on his defence. He gives up quite a few homers and walks and strikes out a ton of batters. In Game 1, he faced 30 batters and only 13 balls were put in play. The Braves only managed 1 hit on those balls in play, which is a little unlucky. Wood walked 5 in 7.1 IP: if he walks that many tonight I expect the Braves to do some damage.

Atlanta Braves versus Righthanded Pitchers (2002/2003)
Player	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	W	K	SB	CS	HBP	avg	obp	slg
R Furcal	1031	299	46	16	17	76	148	45	15	6	.290	.342	.415
M Giles	595	181	54	3	20	65	94	13	5	11	.304	.383	.506
G Sheffield	858	273	50	1	52	120	94	25	4	16	.318	.411	.561
L Jones	879	277	57	3	47	162	139	7	4	3	.315	.423	.547
J Lopez	639	179	31	3	41	47	119	0	2	11	.280	.340	.531
A Jones	943	259	50	2	58	104	214	11	4	14	.275	.355	.516
J Franco	179	54	8	1	5	17	43	3	0	0	.302	.362	.441
V Castilla	885	223	45	5	27	34	134	5	3	10	.252	.287	.406
pitcher

notes: OBP is calculated without including sac flies (H+W+HBP)/(AB+W+HBP); player in red indicates the batter is at a platoon disadvantage.

The Braves have seen 4 consecutive righthanded power pitchers and tonight they will see the first one for a second time. I think that bodes well for run scoring. Gary Sheffield has to be the key player for the Braves tonight - how will his hand respond two days after his injury?

Mike Hampton (2002/2003)
versus	AB	H	HR	TB	W	K	HBP	SB	CS	OBP	SLG	K pct	W pct
right	1142	326	25	476	134	130	3	4	7	.362	.417	.102	.105
left	316	88	13	136	35	54	5	4	1	.360	.430	.152	.100

Mike Hampton struck out a bunch of Cubs after getting off to a rocky start. He survived, pitching 6 innings and allowing 2 runs before Mark DeRosa drove in 2 runs in the 8th to give the Braves a win. Hampton faced 27 Cubs on Wednesday, walking 5 and striking out 9. He allowed 4 hits, including a double, on 13 balls in play. Facing a finesse lefty for the second time in 4 days will likely spell victory for the Cubs.

Chicago Cubs versus Lefthanded Pitchers (2002/2003)
Player	AB	H	2B	3B	HR	W	K	SB	CS	HBP	avg	obp	slg
K Lofton	244	60	13	5	1	16	29	6	6	4	.246	.303	.348
M Grudzielanek	209	64	16	0	3	24	28	1	1	2	.306	.383	.426
S Sosa	206	72	6	1	18	54	47	0	1	0	.350	.485	.650
M Alou	242	81	17	2	8	26	24	1	0	1	.335	.401	.521
A Ramirez	260	71	13	0	19	15	41	0	0	2	.273	.318	.542
E Karros	213	73	17	1	6	28	17	2	1	1	.343	.421	.516
A Gonzalez	237	55	15	2	8	31	48	4	2	0	.232	.328	.424
D Miller	200	52	18	0	2	32	44	0	0	0	.260	.362	.380
pitcher

notes: OBP is calculated without including sac flies (H+W+HBP)/(AB+W+HBP); player in red indicates the batter is at a platoon disadvantage.

Alex Gonzalez didn't start against Hampton in Game 2, but Dusty no doubt felt his defence was important enough to forego the offensive edge that Martinez would give them.

Posted by robertdudek on Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 07:00 AM EDT.

Division Series: Sunday, October 5th, 2003 | 47 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

Coach - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 07:50 PM EDT (#88993) #

Looking at individual batter-vs.-pitcher numbers might not have any predictive value, and the sample sizes may be meaningless, but in the selective memory of an elite athlete, past success equals future confidence.

In the regular season, Sammy Sosa is 13-for-29 off Mike Hampton in his career, with six homers, six walks and a cool 1.646 OPS. Moises Alou is 7-for-15, and Mark Grudzielanek 12-for-32, so every time the Cubbies' 2-3-4 hitters come to the plate, they will be digging in. Aramis Ramirez should have some RBI opportunities, so he could be the key for Chicago.

John Smoltz, walking that fine line between courage and insanity, may or may not be available (or effective) after leaving everything he had out there last night. I hope it's decided early and he gets to rest all winter.

Coach - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 08:10 PM EDT (#88994) #

Nice "block" of a pitch in the dirt by Javy Lopez. More of a casual backhand; he didn't even drop to his knees from the crouch, letting Lofton advance to third.

Hampton is not exactly challenging the hitters. If they don't chase the sliders, they're going to draw a lot more walks.

Alou RBI single; 1-0 Cubs.

Coach - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 08:32 PM EDT (#88995) #

Alex Gonzalez homers to make it 2-0. If you can ignore his $5,750,000 salary and .295 OBP, he does have some pop.

Coach - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 08:47 PM EDT (#88996) #

Somebody fed McCarver a good stat -- tonight's starting Braves lineup, counting Tuesday's game, is batting .165 off Wood.

The Fox boys also report that Bobby Cox fined Robert F*ck for his gutless cheap shot, but the umpires didn't think it warranted an ejection, so MLB will probably not suspend him.

robertdudek - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 08:50 PM EDT (#88997) #

I don't think it's illegal to attempt to knock the ball out of a first baseman's glove, though as Coach points out, it is contrary to baseball etiquette.

Coach - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 08:54 PM EDT (#88998) #

To me, Robert, what F*ck did was exactly like barrelling into a fielder with your spikes up after being forced out. Big difference if the throw pulls the first baseman off the bag and he's trying the swipe tag. Then his glove is free game.

Dave Till - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 09:16 PM EDT (#88999) #

When I become King Of The World, the first thing I'm going to do is make the #$%$ tomahawk chop punishable by death. The Atlanta fans sound like zombies (and I don't mean the ZLC here :-)).

Pistol - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 09:28 PM EDT (#89000) #

I don't think the Braves are scoring tonight. Wood appears in complete control.

robertdudek - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 09:32 PM EDT (#89001) #

I'd like to see how Wood is throwing after 100 pitches - that's when his inconsistency reared its head in Game 1.

_Chuck Van Den C - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 09:38 PM EDT (#89002) #

I am betting that Fick has cost himself an invitation back to the Braves next year. He was certainly well worth his puny salary, providing a left-handed bat at 1B somewhere between average and replacement level, but I am guessing the team will be looking for a new first baseman.

Or just inviting Franco back for his big 5-0.

Coach - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 09:44 PM EDT (#89003) #

Ramirez blasts a 2-run shot to center, doubling the lead. Even if (especially if) Wood does hit the wall in the eighth inning, that was huge.

Dave, you and I will only have to endure about one more hour of chopping and chanting this year. Isn't that great?

Mike D - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 09:52 PM EDT (#89004) #

Mike Moffatt, what's your take on the strange Lofton/Giles/Sheffield play? It should have been a double play, right? (Assuming that the umps irrevocably blew the call on the catch/non-catch.)

Coach - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 09:53 PM EDT (#89005) #

Lofton caught that ball! Should be a triple play, but the left field ump blew the call. Hard to believe, considering there are six of them out there.

McCarver has been going on and on about Sheffield passing Giles on the basepath, but Marcus was forced out at second, according to the original bogus call.

robertdudek - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 09:55 PM EDT (#89006) #

The umps blew that one 8 ways to Sunday.

That should be a triple play, except one ump said Lofton caught the ball and another said he trapped it. Braves score a run because the final decison was Lofton did not make the catch (the replay showed he did).

If the umps had called the catch good, Furcal is doubled up at second and Giles left the field instead of returning to first.

robertdudek - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 09:57 PM EDT (#89007) #

Coach,

The replay showed Sheffield passed Giles before the force was made.

Coach - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:01 PM EDT (#89008) #

Dale Scott, if memory serves, called an obvious foul ball a home run a while ago that got Larry Bowa pretty angry. Considering his inability to see Lofton's fine sliding catch, perhaps he should volunteer for an eye exam. Scott also sent a batter to first base on ball three this year, so his counting isn't the best, either.

Coach - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:06 PM EDT (#89009) #

The umps blew that one 8 ways to Sunday.

What else is new? I missed the replay that showed when Sheffield passed Giles, but it's hard to believe that among the five umps who didn't blow the call, they couldn't have come up with a way to award at least two outs.

I'm still seething about that bonehead Kerwin Danley, who allowed Tony La Russa and his crew mates to overrule his mistake on the ball Catalanotto trapped in St. Louis and took a triple play away from the Jays.

Coach - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:13 PM EDT (#89010) #

Wood's over 100 pitches. I hope he stays in, and they pinch-hit F*ck in the pitcher's spot, leading off next inning. Then Kerry can rear back and fire his last pitch of the night -- a 99-mph heater into the ribs.

Coach - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:22 PM EDT (#89011) #

Boy, that was hard-hitting journalism. With the supervisor of umpires in the booth, the announcers didn't even ask about how the six-man crew couldn't get the original call right. They did thank him 37 times for saying nothing.

Coach - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:29 PM EDT (#89012) #

Three more outs and we'll witness something that happens every 95 years or so.

Mike D - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:55 PM EDT (#89013) #

Credit Where It's Due Dept.: Much-maligned for their personnel decisions, the Cubs brass (and Dusty) have actually won a playoff series.

Pepper Moffatt - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 10:57 PM EDT (#89014) #

http://economics.about.com
Mike Moffatt, what's your take on the strange Lofton/Giles/Sheffield play? It should have been a double play, right? (Assuming that the umps irrevocably blew the call on the catch/non-catch.)

I didn't see it. I made plans to go out with a few people who weren't interested in the game. :(

I'm sure I'll see a lot of replays of it, though. What exactly happened?

Mike

Dave Till - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 11:04 PM EDT (#89015) #

Dave, you and I will only have to endure about one more hour of chopping and chanting this year. Isn't that great?

And now, we will have to endure zero hours of chopping and chanting, which is even greater. :-)

Mike, here's the situation: runners on first (Giles) and second (Furcal), nobody out. Sheffield hits a fly ball to shallow centre. Lofton runs in and catches the ball, but the left field umpire rules it a trap. Furcal scores. Lofton throws to second to force Giles, who has gone back to first, passing Sheffield, who has rounded first.

Pepper Moffatt - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 11:13 PM EDT (#89016) #

http://economics.about.com
Mike, here's the situation: runners on first (Giles) and second (Furcal), nobody out. Sheffield hits a fly ball to shallow centre. Lofton runs in and catches the ball, but the left field umpire rules it a trap. Furcal scores. Lofton throws to second to force Giles, who has gone back to first, passing Sheffield, who has rounded first.

Weird play. So Sheffield passed Giles before the force out?

In that case Sheffield should be out the instant he passes Giles. Once Sheffield is out Giles isn't forced to go to second, so there shouldn't be a forceout there and Giles can stay at first.

Is that what the umps called?

Mike

robertdudek - Sunday, October 05 2003 @ 11:42 PM EDT (#89017) #

The umps let Sheffield stay at first.

Mike D - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 12:04 AM EDT (#89018) #

Extremely regrettable hijack:

Dan Snyder has passed away.

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 07:24 AM EDT (#89019) #

http://economics.about.com
The umps let Sheffield stay at first.

Then they called Giles out at second?

My only thought is that they must have thought Sheffield passed Giles after the forceout. In that case, the pass isn't an illegal one.

Weird stuff.

Mike

Craig B - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 09:28 AM EDT (#89020) #

Mike, the pass/force was so close in time, it was an entirely reasonable mistake. Other than in slo-mo, you wouldn't have known it. U1 should be watching the pass and making that call, and when he looked up he would have seen Grudzielanek with the ball on second.

Given the wrong call on the catch, they ruled reasonably if not properly.

Craig B - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 09:30 AM EDT (#89021) #

I don't think it's illegal to attempt to knock the ball out of a first baseman's glove, though as Coach points out, it is contrary to baseball etiquette.

No. It's intentional interference, and an automatic out. There are about half a dozen rules that cover this, you can take your pick.

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 09:34 AM EDT (#89022) #

http://economics.about.com
Given the wrong call on the catch, they ruled reasonably if not properly.

It's too bad they screwed up the call on the catch. The whole issue of one runner passing the other.. either way there would be one out and a guy on first. Instead of it being Giles on first, it was Sheffield. At any rate, I think the umpiring has been pretty good in the playoffs, particularly in the A's-BoSox series.

The umpiring hasn't been perfect, but heck, how many mistakes have the Giants and A's made during the last week? Of course, we hold umpires to much higher standards than we do coaches or players. That's why they get paid so much less. :)

Cheers,

Mike

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 09:39 AM EDT (#89023) #

http://economics.about.com
No. It's intentional interference, and an automatic out. There are about half a dozen rules that cover this, you can take your pick.

I don't know about the half dozen part, but I'd argue it falls under 7.08(b):

7.08 Any runner is out when (b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball.

I'd argue that this covers interference with the thrown ball after it has been caught as well. I don't have any of my big umpiring binders available right now, but I imagine that's the rule a play like that would fall under.

Mike

_Chuck Van Den C - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 10:03 AM EDT (#89024) #

The umpiring hasn't been perfect, but heck, how many mistakes have the Giants and A's made during the last week? Of course, we hold umpires to much higher standards than we do coaches or players. That's why they get paid so much less. :)

Obviously you're being sarcastic here Mike, but mistakes by players should never be used as a defense to tolerate mistakes by umpires.

When a player makes a mistake, there is a consequence in the net-zero game: a plus to the opposition, a minus to his own team. An umpire's mistakes have no upside to anyone. They reflect poorly on the integrity of that game in specific, and the game as a whole.

Perhaps as an ex-umpire, you are more sympathetic to the difficulty of their jobs than the rest of us and perhaps we, as fans, demand too much from mere mortals. I will never pretend that getting all of the handful of difficult calls per game right is an easy thing to do.

Still, when I saw the Lofton play in real time, I thought it was clearly a catch. I was amazed to see it ruled a trap and couldn't help but feel that an umpire, much closer to the play than I, blew the call. I would argue that making the catch/trap determination is easier at ground level than from a higher camera angle (at least, in real time).

That said, I concur with Craig that once the original blunder had been made, it was forgivable that the umps did not notice that the force at second base occurred slightly later than Sheffield passing Giles at first base. Should it have been a specific umpire's job to attempt to simultaneously watch both events? This is not rhetorical, I really don't know.

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 10:34 AM EDT (#89025) #

http://economics.about.com
Perhaps as an ex-umpire, you are more sympathetic to the difficulty of their jobs than the rest of us and perhaps we, as fans, demand too much from mere mortals. I will never pretend that getting all of the handful of difficult calls per game right is an easy thing to do.

That's pretty much it. I was being sarcastic, but at the same time I think the umpiring (other than the game last night, which I admit I didn't watch) has been really good.

As an umpire, you have to be perfect on your first game of the year, and steadly improve from there.

Should it have been a specific umpire's job to attempt to simultaneously watch both events? This is not rhetorical, I really don't know.

With six umpires out there, you'd think they'd have one of them covering it. I don't think it's a good idea to change the umpiring system for the playoffs as the umps are trained under a four man system and their responsibilities are different under a six man. Maybe they should go to a six man system all year round?

Fortunately missing the pass didn't alter anything, unless you think having Sheffield on first is drastically different than having Giles on first. Either way there was only one out (given the trap call).

Where was the umpire positioned during the trap call? He probably missed it due to poor positioning. On a play like that, the second base umpire should be hustling to the outfield, and the third base up should swing around and take the play at second, IMHO.

Cheers,

Mike

Craig B - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 10:51 AM EDT (#89026) #

Right on, Mike. Here's what I wrote at Primer:

Rule 7.08(b) "A runner is out when... He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball." (If the runner is standing on the base, it's an exception.) Even if Fick had knocked the thrown ball away, he would have been automatically out.

This was also interference according to Rule 7.09(l)

He was also out of the lane, and the play was therefore "interference" according to Rule 7.09(k).

Rule 7.11 generally provides that any member of an offensive team shall vacate space needed by a fielder who is attempting to field a thrown ball.

Rule 2.00, in the definition of "Interference", states that "Offensive interference is an act by the team at bat which interferes with, obstructs, impedes, hinders or confuses any fielder attempting to make a play. If the umpire declares the batter, batter runner, or a runner out for interference, all other runners shall return to the last base that was in the judgment of the umpire, legally touched at the time of the interference, unless otherwise provided by these rules. In the event the batter runner has not reached first base, all runners shall return to the base last occupied at the time of the pitch. "

These rules do not apply to the base line itself, because the runner is entitled to the base line under rule 7.06 except where the fielder is fielding a batted ball.

Fick's conduct was also unsportsmanlike (in the opinion of this armchair umpire) and therefore grounds for ejection. Rule 9.01(d).

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 10:56 AM EDT (#89027) #

http://economics.about.com

Wow.. you're right Craig. There is a half dozen rules that could have covered it.

I was really surprised when Fick wasn't tossed. He should have been.

Technically Byrnes should have been tossed for pushing the catcher as well, but I think the umps showed great restraint in letting it go. Tossing Byrnes would have made the situation much worse, so I think their decision was pretty prudent.

robertdudek - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:01 AM EDT (#89028) #

"7.08 Any runner is out when (b) He intentionally interferes with a thrown ball."

"I'd argue that this covers interference with the thrown ball after it has been caught as well. I don't have any of my big umpiring binders available right now, but I imagine that's the rule a play like that would fall under."

I don't think it's logical to suppose that a ball nestled in a glove is a "thrown" ball. Otherwise, running into the glove of a catcher trying to knock out the ball would be intentionally interfering with a "thrown" ball.

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:07 AM EDT (#89029) #

http://economics.about.com
I don't think it's logical to suppose that a ball nestled in a glove is a "thrown" ball. Otherwise, running into the glove of a catcher trying to knock out the ball would be intentionally interfering with a "thrown" ball.

Not really. There's a difference between having your glove in the position to catch a throw and having your glove in the position to tag someone out.

7.09(l) does work better, though I've never liked the rule because the word is quite awkward. 7.08(b) is a lot more straight forward. As Craig points out, there are often several rules that cover the same play. Without the aid of the binders they give the professional umpires (which are quite a bit different from the ones they give to high level amateurs) we'd never know for sure which rule(s) are cited for the accepted ruling on such a play.

I've seen the professional binders. They're these absolutely massive D-ring things. Last time I checked (about 5 years ago), there were 4 of them with over 1000 pages in each.

Mike

Pepper Moffatt - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:07 AM EDT (#89030) #

http://economics.about.com
err.. that should be "the wordING is quite awkward"

_Chuck Van Den C - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:13 AM EDT (#89031) #

I was really surprised when Fick wasn't tossed. He should have been.

Here's where I'm going to defend the umpires from you and your unsympathetic ilk. ;)

Prior to the benefit of slow motion replays, it wasn't clear to me that Fick's arm waving action was deliberate. It seemed suspicious, to be sure (especially given his rep as a shit disturber), but could have legitimately been viewed as the result of last second stumbling or tripping.

Obviously the replays painted the event in a different light (to sloppily mix metaphors).

That the league didn't step in after the game, despite Cox taking it upon himself to fine Fick for the transgression, is where the true breach occurred.

I see Fick didn't even pinch-hit last night. Too bad. The Braves could have used the HBP.

robertdudek - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:20 AM EDT (#89032) #

Craig,

Fick was already out regardless of what happpened when he attempted to jar the ball loose. The 1B had caught it and it (of course) is a force play at first base (not a tag play).

1) He wasn't off the baseline, he just reached with his left hand.

2) He didn't violate rule 7.11 because he allowed the 1B to catch the ball

3) It wasn't obstruction either, because the play had been made and there were no other baserunners (Fick was the leadoff man).

I fully agree that Fick's actions were unsportsmanlike and he should have been tossed. I'd also argue that slamming your bat on the ground after a strikeout or flinging it angrily towards the dugout is unsportsmanlike, but the umps seem to have no problem with that.

Fick's actions were also pointless, because the moment the ball nestled in Karros' glove he was out. Perhaps he was trying to hit the glove the moment the ball was arriving, in which case it would violate rule 7.08 (b), 7.11 and 2.00 and probably others.

He slapped the glove AFTER Karros caught the ball.

Craig B - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:20 AM EDT (#89033) #

That the league didn't step in after the game, despite Cox taking it upon himself to fine Fick for the transgression, is where the true breach occurred.

Actually MLB did fine Fick for actions on the field and his comments after the game.

Craig B - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:25 AM EDT (#89034) #

He wasn't off the baseline, he just reached with his left hand.

The replay showed clearly that he was out of the lane.

I understad the point you are trying to make about the "thrown ball", but umpires are generally to consider a ball a thrown ball while it is in the act of being caught.

And yes, as you say, he was alerady out. If he were not, then clearly those sections I identified would apply... as you point out.

_Chuck Van Den C - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 11:27 AM EDT (#89035) #

Actually MLB did fine Fick for actions on the field and his comments after the game.

Great. I am pleased to stand corrected. Selig 1, Chuck 0, Fick -25K.

_A - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 01:39 PM EDT (#89036) #

Fick's actions were also pointless, because the moment the ball nestled in Karros' glove he was out
I believe that an out at first qualifies under the same rules that apply to catch/no cath. In that it must be a voluntary release of the ball for the catch to stand and an out to be recorded.

I haven't had a chance to take in a whole lot of playoff baseball but it seems like adding two more umpires to the field is causing more confusion than any advantage four extra eyes should give to the game. The system generally works during the year, notwithstanding the occasional bonehead calls we see periodically - and it is periodically when almost 5200 games are played during a season. Why tinker with it and give poor Blue another thing to think about?

This is the second playoff triple play the Braves have squeeked out of due to umpire error since 1992. GRUBER TAGGED HIM ON THE SHOE!...Even the Sun got the call right with the visual evidence to prove it.

_Ben NS - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 03:27 PM EDT (#89037) #

A, I cnnot handle talk of the triple play. To rob Devo, Johnny O Robbie and Helly of what they deserved was unjust.

_snellville jone - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 04:42 PM EDT (#89038) #

While it stinks that the correct call was not made originally, how could that have ever been a triple play? If Lofton caught it, then Giles makes it back to first. If Lofton missed it, then Furcal scores. Being at the game, I am sure that the second base ump signaled that Lofton made the catch, which sent Giles scurrying back to first. The Braves lost either way, both now and then, so I hope you all are sufficiently happy.

robertdudek - Monday, October 06 2003 @ 06:19 PM EDT (#89039) #

Because Giles was hanging around the infield arguing with the umps. I don't think time was called.

Division Series: Sunday, October 5th, 2003 | 47 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.