Game 2015.65: Reds at Tigers

Well by now I’m sure that most of you have heard the big news in baseball, that the FBI is investigating the St. Louis Cardinals for hacking, accessing the Houston Astros internal databases and using the information there to leak trade rumors, apparently in an attempt to intentionally mess up deals that Houston was working on.

It was hardly “hacking” in the strict sense of the word: Astros GM Jeff Luhnow, previously from St. Louis, used the same passwords in Houston that he had while with the Cardinals. Oops. The Cardinals employees weren’t exactly devious themselves–they accessed the Houston databases from an IP address that was easily traced back to the home of one of the Cardinals employees. Oops.

At any rate, this is only the tip of the iceberg. Word is that FBI agents are converging on Comerica Park this evening, working from a tip from an anonymous source that Nick Castellanos is known throughout the league to be a hacker.

*****

It’s hard to say enough about the job that Anibal Sanchez did last night. Apparently Jeff Jones had worked with him to change his positioning on the rubber before he pitches. Could something like that really make such a huge difference?

Tonight’s OK-We’ll-Try-Collins-6th Lineup:

  1. Anthony Gose, CF
  2. Ian Kinsler, 2B
  3. Miguel Cabrera, 1B
  4. Yoenis Cespedes, LF
  5. JD Martinez, RF
  6. Tyler Collins, DH
  7. Nick Castellanos, 3B
  8. James McCann, C
  9. Jose Iglesias, SS

27 thoughts on “Game 2015.65: Reds at Tigers”

  1. Tigers moved into a tie for second with the Twins’ loss to the Cardinals.

    1. Yeah. I always keep close eye on counts, Tigers and opposition. Ryan = near 8/inn; Lorenzen = 19.

  2. Coleman – excellent post- take the” hard news story” and add the amusing twist… well played, sir!

    1. When I heard about the FBI investigating hackers in baseball…well, the joke was unavoidable. Thank you though!

  3. Nice lunge/grab of foul-3rd strike by McCann.
    I haven’t found anything to dislike about Kyle Ryan this year so far. Throws a lot of strikes, so gets many lo-count outs, in air and on ground. Avg = 9/inning now.

    1. Well, personally I think if he’s going to sport old school sideburns he needs to wear the socks high. Don’t they have cioaches to help guys with this stuff?

  4. 95% of the time, booth blows Tigers’ challenge. Friggin’ idiots —–how many times you gotta watch replay before you get it right? Might as well eliminate replay rule!

  5. Well, that’s a welcome “relief” —-Ian & AlAl come in with inherited runners, & leave ’em standing!
    Is this where Tigers turn their season around??

  6. Man, they’re not overturning ANYTHING anymore! Really, might as well discontinue these challenges. That’s 1 for us, 1 for Reds.
    ….And I mean, 1 blown in our favor, 1 blown in theirs.

  7. I hate when the Tigets play that 2 run offense cause its our 5th starter so its ok!…10 runners 2 runs!

    1. You’re right. Might as well play that offense behind Price & Simon, our 1 and 2 —–they only need 1 run lately….

      @jud (and anyone else here): I’d like to know what you guys think on this = I believe the replay officials blew both challenges last night. I thought both should have been overturned, they decided neither.
      So from what I saw on the replay cameras, it was 1 gift for us, 1 gift for Cincy. If they need “overwhelming evidence” to overturn a call, then what does it take to overwhelm them? They were much better in this regard last year; it seems this year, they’ve become very cowardly about overturning.
      Anyone strongly, or mildly agree (or disagree) with me?

  8. McCann…Casty…Collins don’t produce squat considering Cabrerra, Cespedes, and Martinez are on base a lot lately.

  9. I didn’t know Avila was back catching already…..McCann last 10 games…..6 hits…1 run,,,,1 rbi….179 BA…509 OPS..might as well be Alex!

  10. Ha! Well I didn’t expect this —Ausmus is just as enraged as I am about instant replay this year, and even echoed some of my sentiments. (Funny tho, he failed to mention the blown non-overturn that went in Detroit’s favor…).

    http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_.....sed-season

    Anyone else here —thoughts on this? Wasn’t anybody watching those slo-mo replays which clearly showed that Gose got his toe on the plate before the tag went down on him?
    And we caught a break when their runner clearly eluded the tag at 2nd. I figure if they take the time out to review these managers’ challenges, they should get it right. Hell, I get pissed even when the blown review goes in our favor! (not quite as much as the other kind tho).
    MLB: Get your review act together! At least get it back to how you had it last year, which was pretty good.
    A quote from that article: In an email to The Associated Press, MLB spokesman Mike Teevan said: “After viewing all relevant angles, the Replay Official felt that he could not definitively determine that the runner touched home prior to being tagged.”
    Then I say, he’s an ###hole without eyes, and should be fired from that job.

    1. I guess it has to be “overwhelming” evidence. This I guess was more “after reviewing all relevant angles of the replay, I did see Gose touch the base before the tag, but the whole thing left me feeling underwhelmed.”

  11. Maybe it isn’t just the replay reviews that have regressed–maybe there are also more blown calls on the field, leading to more reviews.

  12. I got a chuckle out of what you said, but it’s really not a laughing matter. These managers put a lot on the line, risking losing their precious few chances to challenge, (what to speak of losing a critical out, or run scored, etc.) so it behooves the replay official to do his job well.
    As to your 2nd comm, I don’t know if there’s more blown calls; at least in Tigers games, I haven’t noticed an increased amount this year. But I was surprised and pleased to see that Ausmus is on the exact same page as me, as he pointed out the change over last year. Last year, I think both calls would have been overturned, which would be the correct decision. That’s why I used the word cowardly before, when referring to this year’s reviews.

Comments are closed.