I admit it...

[Yeti]

I unfollowed. Dude is seriously worse than Hitler.

Still have no idea who this is.

So, he's got a TV show then?

+1

[Tonker]

... I don't understand why David Ross (#3) has "It Takes Two" as his walk-up music.

[Saul Goodman]

... I don't understand why David Ross (#3) has "It Takes Two" as his walk-up music.

He's looking at you, Welington. It only takes two. Not three. Two.

[InternetApex]

... I don't understand why David Ross (#3) has "It Takes Two" as his walk-up music.

One, that song goes down harder than dick.

Two, the Catcher is the number two position in scoring.

Connect the dots.

[Shooter]

... I don't understand why David Ross (#3) has "It Takes Two" as his walk-up music.

One, that song goes down harder than dick.

Two, the Catcher is the number two position in scoring.

Connect the dots.

Feels like you already connected them.

[InternetApex]

... I don't understand why David Ross (#3) has "It Takes Two" as his walk-up music.

One, that song goes down harder than dick.

Two, the Catcher is the number two position in scoring.

Connect the dots.

Feels like you already connected them.

That song is pretty much an old school dance number, in which MC Rob Base and DJ EZ Rock show out over a ridiculously catchy break beat. In baseball terms, the DJ, the catcher, he's the man. In a way he's the one who devises the plan. The throws the sign, and he hooks up the beat with clout. Lester throws the rhyme through the mic and he strikes 'em out.

EDIT: I just now realized that late 80s stalwarts Rob "Base" and DJ EZ "Rock" both have street slang for crack cocaine in their handles. Dope.

[CubFaninHydePark]

... I don't understand why David Ross (#3) has "It Takes Two" as his walk-up music.

I took it to mean that it takes both him and Lester for him to have a job in the major leagues...

[Tonker]

... I don't understand why David Ross (#3) has "It Takes Two" as his walk-up music.

I took it to mean that it takes both him and Lester for him to have a job in the major leagues...

That's actually pretty funny, and no doubt SKO-approved, too, which makes me feel easier about laughing at it.

[Tonker]

DPD

... I find the review system on close calls to be baffling, to say the least.  I can only assume that the guys in NY get to see something that we don't because almost invariably when I think "Well, that decision is probably wrong but you can't say for sure", the decision subsequently gets overturned.  That then gets me thinking that where the decision is probably wrong it'll get overturned, only for them to go ahead and confirm a decision that I was almost sure was incorrect.  I'm probably biased in this but it seems to me that, so far this year, where a decision could have gone against the Cubs, it mostly has.

EDIT: wouldn't you know it, somebody tracks this stuff.  As of last night, the Cubs had appealed fourteen times, only five of which were successful.  Other teams had appealed five times against the Cubs, three times successfully.  So, not quite as catastrophic as I'd thought.  Nonetheless, bearing in mind that you probably only appeal when you're reasonably confident of the decision going your way, it seems that either the Cubs don't have any better a feel for what's right or wrong than I do, or they're getting humped.  They also, apparently, (have to?) appeal decisions way more than their opponents.

In summary, fuck the umps.

[Yeti]

DPD

... I find the review system on close calls to be baffling, to say the least.  I can only assume that the guys in NY get to see something that we don't because almost invariably when I think "Well, that decision is probably wrong but you can't say for sure", the decision subsequently gets overturned.  That then gets me thinking that where the decision is probably wrong it'll get overturned, only for them to go ahead and confirm a decision that I was almost sure was incorrect.  I'm probably biased in this but it seems to me that, so far this year, where a decision could have gone against the Cubs, it mostly has.

EDIT: wouldn't you know it, somebody tracks this stuff.  As of last night, the Cubs had appealed fourteen times, only five of which were successful.  Other teams had appealed five times against the Cubs, three times successfully.  So, not quite as catastrophic as I'd thought.  Nonetheless, bearing in mind that you probably only appeal when you're reasonably confident of the decision going your way, it seems that either the Cubs don't have any better a feel for what's right or wrong than I do, or they're getting humped.  They also, apparently, (have to?) appeal decisions way more than their opponents.

In summary, fuck the umps.

Baseball Reference?

[Powdered Toast Man]

DPD

... I find the review system on close calls to be baffling, to say the least.  I can only assume that the guys in NY get to see something that we don't because almost invariably when I think "Well, that decision is probably wrong but you can't say for sure", the decision subsequently gets overturned.  That then gets me thinking that where the decision is probably wrong it'll get overturned, only for them to go ahead and confirm a decision that I was almost sure was incorrect.  I'm probably biased in this but it seems to me that, so far this year, where a decision could have gone against the Cubs, it mostly has.

EDIT: wouldn't you know it, somebody tracks this stuff.  As of last night, the Cubs had appealed fourteen times, only five of which were successful.  Other teams had appealed five times against the Cubs, three times successfully.  So, not quite as catastrophic as I'd thought.  Nonetheless, bearing in mind that you probably only appeal when you're reasonably confident of the decision going your way, it seems that either the Cubs don't have any better a feel for what's right or wrong than I do, or they're getting humped.  They also, apparently, (have to?) appeal decisions way more than their opponents.

In summary, fuck the umps.

Was this sparked by the Dexter Fowler steal at 2B? Because I thought upon further review he was safe...







....ish.

[Tonker]

DPD

... I find the review system on close calls to be baffling, to say the least.  I can only assume that the guys in NY get to see something that we don't because almost invariably when I think "Well, that decision is probably wrong but you can't say for sure", the decision subsequently gets overturned.  That then gets me thinking that where the decision is probably wrong it'll get overturned, only for them to go ahead and confirm a decision that I was almost sure was incorrect.  I'm probably biased in this but it seems to me that, so far this year, where a decision could have gone against the Cubs, it mostly has.

EDIT: wouldn't you know it, somebody tracks this stuff.  As of last night, the Cubs had appealed fourteen times, only five of which were successful.  Other teams had appealed five times against the Cubs, three times successfully.  So, not quite as catastrophic as I'd thought.  Nonetheless, bearing in mind that you probably only appeal when you're reasonably confident of the decision going your way, it seems that either the Cubs don't have any better a feel for what's right or wrong than I do, or they're getting humped.  They also, apparently, (have to?) appeal decisions way more than their opponents.

In summary, fuck the umps.

Baseball Reference?

It's actually on a site that Len's mentioned once or twice this year: Baseball Savant

I should point out that it's actually 13 appeals (5-8) by the Cubs, and not 14.  It hadn't updated earlier so I did it myself and got it wrong.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

DPD

... I find the review system on close calls to be baffling, to say the least.  I can only assume that the guys in NY get to see something that we don't because almost invariably when I think "Well, that decision is probably wrong but you can't say for sure", the decision subsequently gets overturned.  That then gets me thinking that where the decision is probably wrong it'll get overturned, only for them to go ahead and confirm a decision that I was almost sure was incorrect.  I'm probably biased in this but it seems to me that, so far this year, where a decision could have gone against the Cubs, it mostly has.

EDIT: wouldn't you know it, somebody tracks this stuff.  As of last night, the Cubs had appealed fourteen times, only five of which were successful.  Other teams had appealed five times against the Cubs, three times successfully.  So, not quite as catastrophic as I'd thought.  Nonetheless, bearing in mind that you probably only appeal when you're reasonably confident of the decision going your way, it seems that either the Cubs don't have any better a feel for what's right or wrong than I do, or they're getting humped.  They also, apparently, (have to?) appeal decisions way more than their opponents.

In summary, fuck the umps.

Was this sparked by the Dexter Fowler steal at 2B? Because I thought upon further review he was safe...







....ish.

There were two similar plays that both went against the Cubs, Fowler being the first one on Saturday, wherein he was called out on an attempted steal of second base, but it looked like Neil Herbert Walker Bush was a little ineffective in applying the tag and that Fowler may have been safe.  There apparently was not enough evidence to overturn it however and he remained out.  The second one was yesterday when Starlin Cedeno Castro easily stole second on a breaking ball but slid past the bag.  Castro was originally called safe but the play was reviewed and he was called out, in spite of the fact that there didn't seem to be enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.  It was all rather frustrating.

[Tonker]

DPD

... I find the review system on close calls to be baffling, to say the least.  I can only assume that the guys in NY get to see something that we don't because almost invariably when I think "Well, that decision is probably wrong but you can't say for sure", the decision subsequently gets overturned.  That then gets me thinking that where the decision is probably wrong it'll get overturned, only for them to go ahead and confirm a decision that I was almost sure was incorrect.  I'm probably biased in this but it seems to me that, so far this year, where a decision could have gone against the Cubs, it mostly has.

EDIT: wouldn't you know it, somebody tracks this stuff.  As of last night, the Cubs had appealed fourteen times, only five of which were successful.  Other teams had appealed five times against the Cubs, three times successfully.  So, not quite as catastrophic as I'd thought.  Nonetheless, bearing in mind that you probably only appeal when you're reasonably confident of the decision going your way, it seems that either the Cubs don't have any better a feel for what's right or wrong than I do, or they're getting humped.  They also, apparently, (have to?) appeal decisions way more than their opponents.

In summary, fuck the umps.

Was this sparked by the Dexter Fowler steal at 2B? Because I thought upon further review he was safe...







....ish.

There were two similar plays that both went against the Cubs, Fowler being the first one on Saturday, wherein he was called out, but it looked like Neil Herbert Walker Bush was a little ineffective in applying the tag and that Fowler may have been safe.  There apparently was not enough evidence to overturn it however and he remained out.  The second one was yesterday when Starlin Cedeno Castro easily stole second on a breaking ball but slid past the bag.  Castro was originally called safe but the play was reviewed and he was called out, in spite of the fact that there didn't seem to be enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.  It was all rather frustrating.

Okay, good.  It doesn't really make it any more palatable, but at least I know I'm not being all BC about this.

[Powdered Toast Man]

DPD

... I find the review system on close calls to be baffling, to say the least.  I can only assume that the guys in NY get to see something that we don't because almost invariably when I think "Well, that decision is probably wrong but you can't say for sure", the decision subsequently gets overturned.  That then gets me thinking that where the decision is probably wrong it'll get overturned, only for them to go ahead and confirm a decision that I was almost sure was incorrect.  I'm probably biased in this but it seems to me that, so far this year, where a decision could have gone against the Cubs, it mostly has.

EDIT: wouldn't you know it, somebody tracks this stuff.  As of last night, the Cubs had appealed fourteen times, only five of which were successful.  Other teams had appealed five times against the Cubs, three times successfully.  So, not quite as catastrophic as I'd thought.  Nonetheless, bearing in mind that you probably only appeal when you're reasonably confident of the decision going your way, it seems that either the Cubs don't have any better a feel for what's right or wrong than I do, or they're getting humped.  They also, apparently, (have to?) appeal decisions way more than their opponents.

In summary, fuck the umps.

Was this sparked by the Dexter Fowler steal at 2B? Because I thought upon further review he was safe...







....ish.

There were two similar plays that both went against the Cubs, Fowler being the first one on Saturday, wherein he was called out on an attempted steal of second base, but it looked like Neil Herbert Walker Bush was a little ineffective in applying the tag and that Fowler may have been safe.  There apparently was not enough evidence to overturn it however and he remained out.  The second one was yesterday when Starlin Cedeno Castro easily stole second on a breaking ball but slid past the bag.  Castro was originally called safe but the play was reviewed and he was called out, in spite of the fact that there didn't seem to be enough evidence to overturn the call on the field.  It was all rather frustrating.

I wasn't aware of the one on Castro...I definitely know what Tonker is talking about, though. I see something and say, "Oh, in slow motion that definitely looks like it could be overturned" only to see it not in one instance and then a similar instance with the same amount of visual proof the call gets reversed. I don't know if New York is seeing the same angles at the same speeds as they show the replays in the TV broadcasts.