Posted at 2:02 AM on October 26, 2005
by Josh Lee
Both the White Sox and the Astros got to the World Series on the backs of their starting rotations, but in a 14-inning game filled with questionable baserunning decisions and forehead-slapping errors, your starting rotation doesn't mean a lot. And so Game 3 came down to a guy from the end of Chicago's bench (Geoff Blum) facing a guy from the bottom of Houston's bullpen (Eziquel Astacio). Astacio blinked, and Blum hit a go-ahead homer to right, giving the Sox the lead in what would turn out to be a 7-5 win.
Although Chicago has a commanding 3-0 series lead at this point, it's already been a more entertaining series than last year's, which was pretty much over after Game 1. Every match between the White Sox and the Astros has been a big question mark, with leads switching back and forth and fans left with no idea of what's going to happen at any given moment. If I actually cared about either of these teams, the suspense would be killing me. As it is, the only really rough part about watching is the staying up late.
Around the 11th inning, Joe Buck opined that this is "a great game," and Tim McCarver nodded with "it certainly is."
But, it certainly wasn't. It was a long game. But -- at least the part that I saw -- as devoid of spectacular plays. What it did have is folks failing to execute, poor throws to second base on pitchouts, people swinging at ball 4 and some decent pitching.
But that's it. It was more a series of failures than it was a wonderful display of baseball.
I think we overuse "great." Jack Morris' 10-inning shutout to win a World Series. Now THAT was a great game.
By the way, Joe Buck also opened the broadcast with a weird lead. "We throw around "must-win" as a term all the time, but this really IS a must win for the Houston AStros."
Well, as long as he put it *that* way, he was wrong. He was just throwing around "must-win" again, the same way folks always have. Now game 4? THAT'S a must win.
Oh, those pitchouts were painful to watch. Yeah, Game 3 was more an endurance contest than anything else, but any game that has enough going on on the field (good or bad) to help me tune out what Buck & McCarver are babbling about qualifies as a good one in my book.
I wish i could (tune it out). But how desperate is Fox to inject something into the game when they have the Elias (or Stats or whoever) keeping track of the number of "camera cuts' in the game? The number of replays. The number of show promos and I forget what the fourth one was.
They should've just put up a graphic that says "this game sucks."
Buck does the play by play, right? If so, it was he who said Uribe caught a ball in foul territory when he was standing a good stride in fair territory.
Do they watch the game on the monitors? What was with the delayed call on that foul ball hit by the Astros (forget who hit it) when the lousy director of the video crew failed to give us a live angle to see the ball hit the ground? The ball hit a good 18-24 inches foul and we're told it was a good call.
Thanks to Buck and McCarver I will never forget that Oswalt is a "drop and drive" pitcher.
That reminds me. And I realize I sound stupid for asking this, but in -- like -- the 11th inning (or maybe the 12th) Podsednik chopped a bunt foul (it hit in the the batters box) and Ausmus grabbed (apparently in fair territory) and threw Podsednik (who didn't leave the batters box, I don't believe) out. Nice play. I get it.
But an inning earlier, someone else bunted, it went off the plate and in the air, and the umpire waved it dead before it landed, declaring it foul.
What's the rule here?
You sound stupid in all your posts, Bob :)
I don't recall the second play you mentioned, but the call would depend where the ball was when the catcher touched it. If it's over foul territory, it's a foul ball. The plate is in fair territory, so if it ware over the plate it should be fair. If the ball hit batter while the batter was in the batter's box, it's a foul ball.