TexasCHLforum.com

What an amazing series. I was right about it being a nail biter, all the way down to the last pitch.

When Blanco lost the ball in the 9th and then Perez slipped I think I was speaking in a language not yet invented. Riveting game. My hat is off to the Royals, they are a great ball club.

I also think it was pretty dirty baseball to hit the CATCHER in the leg with a pitch. That changed the Royals' whole game after that.

You think that Hudson threw at him intentionally? In that situation that'd be the last thing anybody would want to do. It's Game 7 of the World Series, not in the middle of June. The Royals are known for their aggressive base running and in a tight game like this, one runner can make a big difference.

There's no way he threw at him with intent, that was a pitch that Hudson lost control of and that he ran in on him too far.

I absolutely cannot say with any certainty that the pitcher threw that ball with the intent to hit him. However, I am quite suspicious. There were other batters hit and I could easily tell that the pitch got away from them or was just a little too close, Sandoval, and the batter didn't get out of the way. Hitting the catcher in the thigh has an incredible effect on the entire team. A backup catcher doesn't get much playing time and hadn't at all in the playoffs this year. It changed their concern on the bases and whole offensive and defensive strategy afterward. The Giants no longer had to worry about his base running. They suddenly tried a few bunts. It was all too coincidental for me.

The Royals could have tied the game in the 9th, but the third base coach held up the stop sign for Gordon, when I think he could have scored on his hit that was bobbled in the outfield. I don't know why he stopped him. Maybe he didn't see what was happening out there.

It was a great series. I'm confused by the umpires' strike zones for both teams. They seemed consistent, but for the players it makes it very difficult to know what they can hit versus what they have to attempt to hit.

Below are the computerized evaluations (pfx) of the umpires for all 7 games. Anything above a 94 is considered an "A" for them. Pretty consistent for the most part!

- 10/21, SF@KC 1: Jerry Meals (1st): pfx (106/109 Balls, 44/50 Strikes = 150/159 = 94.3%). +5 SF.
- 10/22, SF@KC 2: Eric Cooper (1st World Series): pfx (91/93 B, 37/40 S = 128/133 = 96.2%) +5 SF.

- 10/24, KC@SF 3: Jim Reynolds (1st World Series): pfx (89/90 B, 39/45 S = 128/135 = 94.8%) +3 SF.
- 10/25, KC@SF 4: Ted Barrett (3rd World Series): pfx (115/115 B, 39/48 S = 154/163 = 94.5%) +3 KC.
- 10/26, KC@SF 5: Hunter Wendelstedt (1st World Series): pfx (81/81 B, 29/39 S = 110/120 = 91.7%) +4 KC.

- 10/28, SF@KC 6: Jeff Kellogg (Crew Chief): pfx (90/97 B, 40/45 S = 130/142 = 91.5%) +4 SF.
- 10/29, SF@KC 7: Jeff Nelson (3rd World Series): pfx (68/68 B, 39/43 S = 107/111 = 96.4%) NU.
Series Complete: WS Giants defeat Royals (4-3), net advantage Giants, +10 pitches (won series).

Blindref757 wrote:Below are the computerized evaluations (pfx) of the umpires for all 7 games. Anything above a 94 is considered an "A" for them. Pretty consistent for the most part!

- 10/21, SF@KC 1: Jerry Meals (1st): pfx (106/109 Balls, 44/50 Strikes = 150/159 = 94.3%). +5 SF.
- 10/22, SF@KC 2: Eric Cooper (1st World Series): pfx (91/93 B, 37/40 S = 128/133 = 96.2%) +5 SF.

- 10/24, KC@SF 3: Jim Reynolds (1st World Series): pfx (89/90 B, 39/45 S = 128/135 = 94.8%) +3 SF.
- 10/25, KC@SF 4: Ted Barrett (3rd World Series): pfx (115/115 B, 39/48 S = 154/163 = 94.5%) +3 KC.
- 10/26, KC@SF 5: Hunter Wendelstedt (1st World Series): pfx (81/81 B, 29/39 S = 110/120 = 91.7%) +4 KC.

- 10/28, SF@KC 6: Jeff Kellogg (Crew Chief): pfx (90/97 B, 40/45 S = 130/142 = 91.5%) +4 SF.
- 10/29, SF@KC 7: Jeff Nelson (3rd World Series): pfx (68/68 B, 39/43 S = 107/111 = 96.4%) NU.
Series Complete: WS Giants defeat Royals (4-3), net advantage Giants, +10 pitches (won series).

That's cool. Is this based off of what was thought to be a strike or ball by some electronic method or another person reviewing the video? The calls seemed fairly consistent and I didn't really think the umpires calls favored one team over the other. However, being consistent is not necessarily being accurate.