i said " to me". I guess my standards are a bit more stringent.

(07-20-2015 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i said " to me". I guess my standards are a bit more stringent.

Why throw 81 pitches when 27 will do?

Yeah, I'm bored.

(07-20-2015 03:39 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 11:05 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 09:54 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Salinas struck out the side in a scoreless 8th inning.

Any inning in which a pitcher truly strikes out the side is scoreless -- barring the bizarre case of the pitcher having four or more strikeouts, with one of those third strikes being dropped and that runner somehow scoring despite every batter striking out.

??? No, George. Your comment only pertains to striking out the side in order. One can strike out the side, and still put runners on base, give up hits and even runs.

No, Walt, your comment pertains to a cheap, sordid, wussified, un-American dumbing down of an otherwise respectable baseball term. It should be used for one thing and one thing only: striking out all the batters in an inning. After all, the "side" that a pitcher faces in an inning is the batters who come up; striking out said side means striking out those batters -- not some of them (while others walk and hit homers and do whatever else), but all of them. It is neither logical nor desirable for it to refer to anything else. I would hope that you of all fans would not be an accomplice in the cheapening of language!

(07-20-2015 03:44 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  "Strike out the side" is not a formal term, and opinions vary on what it means.

FrizzyOwl is right, of course -- but in this particular case, my opinion is correct and Walt's momentary brain lapse above is incorrect. So there!

(07-20-2015 04:04 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i said " to me". I guess my standards are a bit more stringent.

Why throw 81 pitches when 27 will do?

Yeah, I'm bored.

Well, to me, a perfect game by a pitcher would mean they never got the bat on the ball despite trying every time. why give your fielders 27 chances to make an error?

(07-20-2015 04:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 04:04 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i said " to me". I guess my standards are a bit more stringent.

Why throw 81 pitches when 27 will do?

Yeah, I'm bored.

Well, to me, a perfect game by a pitcher would mean they never got the bat on the ball despite trying every time. why give your fielders 27 chances to make an error?

Spoken like a true fan of the 2015 Rice Owls...

(07-20-2015 04:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 03:39 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 11:05 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 09:54 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Salinas struck out the side in a scoreless 8th inning.

Any inning in which a pitcher truly strikes out the side is scoreless -- barring the bizarre case of the pitcher having four or more strikeouts, with one of those third strikes being dropped and that runner somehow scoring despite every batter striking out.

??? No, George. Your comment only pertains to striking out the side in order. One can strike out the side, and still put runners on base, give up hits and even runs.

No, Walt, your comment pertains to a cheap, sordid, wussified, un-American dumbing down of an otherwise respectable baseball term. It should be used for one thing and one thing only: striking out all the batters in an inning. After all, the "side" that a pitcher faces in an inning is the batters who come up; striking out said side means striking out those batters -- not some of them (while others walk and hit homers and do whatever else), but all of them. It is neither logical nor desirable for it to refer to anything else. I would hope that you of all fans would not be an accomplice in the cheapening of language!

(07-20-2015 03:44 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  "Strike out the side" is not a formal term, and opinions vary on what it means.

FrizzyOwl is right, of course -- but in this particular case, my opinion is correct and Walt's momentary brain lapse above is incorrect. So there!

When I was young, and listening to Cardinal broadcasts and NBC Games of the Week, striking out the side was used in exactly the manner George describes. You did not hear the pitcher credited with accomplishing the feat in an inning with 6 plate appearances, or with runs having scored, absent the rare case when a batter reached on a dropped or otherwise "missed" 3rd strike.

The "evolution" of this "not formal" term has been to some degree recent. The fact that you can modify meaning if enough impressionable people are willing to adopt the new meaning, does not mean the modification is an improvement. This particular modification is akin to awarding a participation trophy. Kind of like adding Milo Hamikton to a Hall of Fame that includes Jack Buck. Totally unnecessary.

(07-20-2015 04:04 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 03:39 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 11:05 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-17-2015 09:54 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Salinas struck out the side in a scoreless 8th inning.

Any inning in which a pitcher truly strikes out the side is scoreless -- barring the bizarre case of the pitcher having four or more strikeouts, with one of those third strikes being dropped and that runner somehow scoring despite every batter striking out.

??? No, George. Your comment only pertains to striking out the side in order. One can strike out the side, and still put runners on base, give up hits and even runs.

No, Walt, your comment pertains to a cheap, sordid, wussified, un-American dumbing down of an otherwise respectable baseball term. It should be used for one thing and one thing only: striking out all the batters in an inning. After all, the "side" that a pitcher faces in an inning is the batters who come up; striking out said side means striking out those batters -- not some of them (while others walk and hit homers and do whatever else), but all of them. It is neither logical nor desirable for it to refer to anything else. I would hope that you of all fans would not be an accomplice in the cheapening of language!

(07-20-2015 03:44 PM)Frizzy Owl Wrote:  "Strike out the side" is not a formal term, and opinions vary on what it means.

FrizzyOwl is right, of course -- but in this particular case, my opinion is correct and Walt's momentary brain lapse above is incorrect. So there!

Um, no again, George. I have heard MLB announcers many times over the years use the term "struck out the side" any time a pitcher gets all 3 outs via strikeout, even if they are not in order. If this is dumbing down of the phrase, then it has occurred for quite some time now; perhaps now when we were growing up way back when, but certainly over the past 10 - 15 years. I've heard the phrase used by the likes of reknown and long-time announcer such as Vin Scully and Tim McCarver when the 3 Ks do not come in order.

(07-20-2015 05:16 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I've heard the phrase used by the likes of reknown and long-time announcer such as Vin Scully...

I doubt you heard it from Vin Scully.

(07-20-2015 05:16 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...and Tim McCarver when the 3 Ks do not come in order.

Tim McCarver, eh? I think I can rest my case on that fact alone.

(07-20-2015 05:16 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  If this is dumbing down of the phrase,

Undeniably it is.

(07-20-2015 05:16 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ... then it has occurred for quite some time now;

Perhaps, but you and I don't have to be party to it. One has several options, including:
(a) Use the phrase in its un-cheapened meaning to denote a feat a that is rather notable;
(b) Use it in its cheapened form to puff up an occurrence that may or not be notable;
© Don't use it. Say "Well, Smith had two hits, two walks, and three strikeouts in that inning".

Of those options, (b) is by far the least commendable.

(07-20-2015 05:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 05:16 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I've heard the phrase used by the likes of reknown and long-time announcer such as Vin Scully...

I doubt you heard it from Vin Scully.

(07-20-2015 05:16 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ...and Tim McCarver when the 3 Ks do not come in order.

Tim McCarver, eh? I think I can rest my case on that fact alone.

(07-20-2015 05:16 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  If this is dumbing down of the phrase,

Undeniably it is.

(07-20-2015 05:16 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  ... then it has occurred for quite some time now;

Perhaps, but you and I don't have to be party to it. One has several options, including:
(a) Use the phrase in its un-cheapened meaning to denote a feat a that is rather notable;
(b) Use it in its cheapened form to puff up an occurrence that may or not be notable;
© Don't use it. Say "Well, Smith had two hits, two walks, and three strikeouts in that inning".

Of those options, (b) is by far the least commendable.

George, getting 3 strikeouts in an inning is notable regardless. And when I do use the phrase in an inning when there were baserunners I always add the caveat. Sorry, for each their own. I consider myself a baseball purist, and I don't consider using the phrase in a broader context as "cheapening" so long as you also explain that runners reached base.

(07-20-2015 05:55 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  I don't consider using the phrase in a broader context as "cheapening" so long as you also explain that runners reached base.

You can think what you want, but the sentiment of "I don't think my choice is inferior" has never been much an argument that one's choice is not inferior.

(07-20-2015 05:55 PM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  Sorry, for each their own.

Ahh, but you would feel better about yourself if you used it in the more pristine sense. In expression, as in many other things, discipline is its own reward.

(07-20-2015 05:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 04:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 04:04 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i said " to me". I guess my standards are a bit more stringent.

Why throw 81 pitches when 27 will do?

Yeah, I'm bored.

Well, to me, a perfect game by a pitcher would mean they never got the bat on the ball despite trying every time. why give your fielders 27 chances to make an error?

Spoken like a true fan of the 2015 Rice Owls...

Note I did say infield pop-ups. I don't remember the Owls messing up too many of those this past season.

That said, I think either 81 untouched strikes or 27 one pitch at bats would be perfectly enjoyable as long as it was your team's pitcher on the mound.

Trying to get back on topic, I'm curious why Ryan Chandler has 17 stolen bases this summer (in I'm assuming 20-30 games tops?) but only had 5 all season last year for Rice. Either he's gotten a lot faster, that league has horrible catchers, or we just didn't send him enough this past year in stolen base attempts.

(07-20-2015 07:53 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 05:05 PM)mrbig Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 04:27 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 04:04 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-20-2015 04:02 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i said " to me". I guess my standards are a bit more stringent.

Why throw 81 pitches when 27 will do?

Yeah, I'm bored.

Well, to me, a perfect game by a pitcher would mean they never got the bat on the ball despite trying every time. why give your fielders 27 chances to make an error?

Spoken like a true fan of the 2015 Rice Owls...

Note I did say infield pop-ups. I don't remember the Owls messing up too many of those this past season.

That said, I think either 81 untouched strikes or 27 one pitch at bats would be perfectly enjoyable as long as it was your team's pitcher on the mound.

what if one or more batters deliberately took the first pitch as a called strike? Would that negate the perfect game? Say, two of the outs came on the second pitch? Take that to it's logical extreme, and we have the current definition of a perfect game - 27 outs in 27 plate appearances.

I think we have just decided that some things are perfect, and other things are more perfect.

How dare them ruin our "more perfect" 27 pitch game by intentionally taking a pitch!

The good thing about the 27 pitch perfect game is the pitcher is likely available to throw the next day as well!

(07-21-2015 10:56 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  How dare them ruin our "more perfect" 27 pitch game by intentionally taking a pitch!

The good thing about the 27 pitch perfect game is the pitcher is likely available to throw the next day as well!

Which is "more" perfect, the pitcher who missed 81 of 81 swinging bats, or the pitcher who never missed a bat in 27 pitches?

81 consecutive strikes isn't possible unless the batters are really bad.

POSTER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This thread about Owls in summer baseball has been HIJACKED by idiots arguing over what the definition of "is" is.

(07-21-2015 04:15 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  POSTER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This thread about Owls in summer baseball has been HIJACKED by idiots arguing over what the definition of "is" is.

Thank you. I was close to posting the very same thing-- even using the word, "hijacked"-- earlier this morning.

(07-21-2015 04:15 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  POSTER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This thread about Owls in summer baseball has been HIJACKED by idiots arguing over what the definition of "is" is.

Wow. We're idiots? I wonder how we managed to get degrees from Rice?

Chill. We're just having some fun. It's not like a thread on this board has never wandered from it's original intent before or there is so much going on right now we don't have time for little diversions.

Sorry we took up your precious time.

(07-21-2015 05:43 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(07-21-2015 04:15 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  POSTER ALERT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This thread about Owls in summer baseball has been HIJACKED by idiots arguing over what the definition of "is" is.

Wow. We're idiots? I wonder how we managed to get degrees from Rice?

Chill. We're just having some fun. It's not like a thread on this board has never wandered from it's original intent before or there is so much going on right now we don't have time for little diversions.

Sorry we took up your precious time.

I thought it was interesting and in good fun. maybe we need a separate Deadly Serious forum.