Talk:2009 American League Division Series

Discuss the Fact or Opinion

I reverted it, since the IP's take states that the error MUST have caused a result, when other sources SPECULATE at the outcome. If it did indeed fall into MUST, then source it. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 22:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The "source" is called common sense and understanding of baseball rules. Whoever keeps changing the line referring to the blown call by Phil Cuzzi that cost the Twins a run in Game 2 of this year's ALDS--you're wrong with your comments. When someone should have been at second (as Mauer should have been on his double that was called foul) but is only at first (from the hit he got later in the a-bat that only continued because of that missed call), and that missed call is followed by two further hits, it is not "speculation" to say that the missed call cost a team a run. There is no possible way for someone to be on second and fail to score despite two subsequent hits before an out is recorded. The two subsequent Twins hits absolutely made the missed call DIRECTLY cost the Twins a run, there's nothing "speculative" about that. It would be "speculative" to say that the call cost the Twins the entire game, because we don't know if Mijares would have pitched the bottom of the inning if the Twins had been in the lead and what would have happened with someone else on the mound. But there is no legitimate doubt or "speculation" that the missed call cost the Twins AT LEAST one run--and you could speculate that it cost them even more than that —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.184.20 (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

According to this article, which is clearly written Anti-Cuzzi, its speculation. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 23:04, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A lead-off double is not sufficient for a run. That's why MLB used replays only on home runs. As Joe Mauer admitted himself, the single may not have gotten through the hole if he had been on second rather than first. [1] The statement that the run will be scored is based on two subsequent hits will follow the double. If it's ruled a double, you will never know that two subsequent hits will still happen. Pitchers may change their pitches, infielders may change their positions, and so on. There are so many what-if's here, so it's incorrect to say that blown call DIRECTLY cost Twins a run. It's a speculation.--NullSpace (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't rule out the possibility that he would have been picked off/caught stealing or thrown out at third or home either. KuyaBriBri^Talk 04:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's assume Cuzzi gets the call right, and the two subsequent hits by Kubel and Cuddyer also happen as they did. There are a few possible outcomes that would not result in a run scored by Mauer. Suppose on the Kubel hit, Mauer is waved home by the third base coach. Is there not a distinct possibility that the Yankees OF, which will likely be ready for such a play since there is a RISP, can throw him out at home? There's also a possibility, however unlikely, that he can be picked off, caught stealing, caught napping, or thrown out on some other baserunning blunder like failing to touch a base. Now take away the assumption that the two hits will still occur as they did had the call been right, and you're left with a plethora of possible outcomes that do not result in a run scored (on the flip side there are a plethora of outcomes that result in several runs scored). We just don't know because it didn't happen. We don't have a WP:CRYSTAL ball. KuyaBriBri^Talk 05:19, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Reverting the edit from 'MUST' to 'COULD HAVE' due to 3v1 consensus. Be aware, 98.240.184.20, continuing to dispute and revert an edit that has reached a consensus constitutes vandalism. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 11:46, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, Nullspace already reverted it. Warning still stands however, the subject has reached a consensus, and further changing it will be counted as 'factual vandalism'. FELYZA ^{TALK CONTRIBS} 11:47, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Pitchers do not change pitches based on a runner on base, at least not in the case of someone like Mauer, who is not going to try to steal a base. They change pitches based upon who the hitter is. That would not have changed. And Mauer is too much of an avoider of controversy to tell things like they are. There is no way the next single would not have gone through the middle with an infielder over a step or two. Even if I gave you that possibility, with the way that ball was hit, it at LEAST gets Mauer to third, and then he scores on the next hit. Also, Mauer would not have been waved home from second on that kind of single, so your suggestion about getting thrown out at the plate is ridiculous. The Twins' 3rd base coach DOES NOT wave runners home on hits like that with nobody out. I've seen it plenty of times, and he showed that on the last hit--the one that loaded the bases, which was much less sharply hit than the previous one you are citing. It is absolutely NOT "speculation" that the Twins were cost a run by this monstrosity, go ahead and ban me all you want, I'll just go to different computers and continue to correct it. YOU'RE the ones "vandalizing" this page by acting like this is just somehow one possible outcome. You could MAYBE get away with saying it "most likely" made Cuzzi's blown call directly cost the Twins a run, but it's a LOT more than "speculation." That would refer to predicting of future outcomes that had nothing to do with the incident in question. I'm not, for example, trying to predict what would have happened in the bottom of the inning if the Twins had not been deprived of their rightful run. THAT would be "speculation." THIS is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.240.184.20 (talk) 04:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

• Pitchers do not change pitches based on a runner on base - prove it or give any references
• with the way that ball was hit, it at LEAST gets Mauer to third, and then he scores on the next hit. - there is a possibility that Mauer will be stopped at second then the batter will be forced out at first.
• Also, Mauer would not..., The Twins' 3rd base coach DOES NOT..., I've seen it plenty of times. See, you've admitted that these are your speculations.--NullSpace (talk) 13:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

It seems we're hung up on this word "speculation." I've reworded the sentence to say "Two subsequent Twins hits loaded the bases with nobody out, prompting claims that Cuzzi's officiating error cost the Twins a run and possibly the game." I don't think any of us will argue that this is factually untrue, and I believe the wording is supported by the three references I provided. KuyaBriBri^Talk 15:14, 6 November 2009 (UTC)