The World Series

[rvs]

As a side note, it also has Canadian teams, so it's not just a national championship.

Do they ever win?

[Komatteru]

Toronto won the World Series in 1993.  But a Canadian team has never won the championship in basketball.  The NHL is another story, though.  I never understood why it's called the "NHL" when it's represented two nations since the dawn of time.  Unless it was named under the belief that Michigan, Massachusetts, and Illinois are all considered South Canada.

[Machinus]

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/54778

[nataz]

"We gave the Tigers every opportunity to win ballgames, but when their pitchers keep making errors on simple ground balls, what are we supposed to do, pretend we forgot the rules and start running to third base?"

 

[PucktheCat]

Re: pine tar

World Series Game 2


ALCS Game 3




Obviously, the BEST proof that Rogers was using pine tar would have been for the umps to check what was on his hand at the time.  But it is hard to ignore the photographic evidence.  The mark on his hand doesn't look like dirt (it's shiney, for one thing), and it is in the exact same place in both the ALCS and the Series.  When you combine this with his inconsistent statements to the press, the Tiger's 1st base coach saying his hand was "sticky" when he shook it, etc, it becomes a pretty clear picture. 

Of course, the other thing that has become clear is how common it is to use pine tar this way and how underenforced the rules against it are.  Julian Tavarez, an important part of the '04-'05 Cards, almost certainly used the stuff (he was thrown out of a game for a "dirty hat").  The Detroit closer, Jones, wrote an article for The Sporting News a few years back saying that he did it every game he pitched in Colorado.  Given that context, it isn't too surprising that La Russa and the umpires seemed less than shocked by the whole thing.

That isn't meant to take anything away from the 7 shutout innings he put up with a clean hand.  The Tigers clearly earned their one World Series win.

[Komatteru]

But it is hard to ignore the photographic evidence.

Since you are an expert on identifying substances from photographs, what is the substance on this person's hand:


You don't get any context other than the photo.  In order to condemn Rogers for his hand, you cannot listen to various people clamor that they believed it to be pine tar, or that other pitchers in the past have used the substance.  That is called "bias."

[PucktheCat]

I have no idea.  But I would be fairly confident that if if was on a pitcher's hand it would be a "foreign substance" within the meaning of Rule 8.02(4).

Regardless, I have no wish to debate you on this topic.  Each of us can evaluate the photographic evidence for themselves.  I find the idea that it is "dirt" from the playing surface to almost laughable myself; apparently you do not.

[Komatteru]

No, I have no idea what the substance on Rogers' hand was, because I wasn't on the field that night (sadly, the Tigers still have me in CCC--"The Couch is as Close as you Come"--Ball, and wasn't called up for the postseason).  I can't tell what something is by looking at photographs of it, so I can make no conclusion in regards to what the substance was.  It could be pine tar, but it could very well be something else.  Since no one bothered to obtain evidence, no conclusion in regards to whether or not the substance was, in fact, pine tar, can be reached.  This is not the same as believing that it is not pine tar.  The difference is quite huge.

Victory is mine!  By the way, the photo is of residue caused by the firing of a M16 machine gun (I don't know a whole lot about firing machine guns, though).

[PucktheCat]

Do you think it could be dirt from the playing surface, as Rogers claims?  Because just about anything else, be it pine tar, spit, shaving cream, M16 residue, or whatever else, would be cheating.  The issue isn't identifying the material - we only have to determine that some substance is there.

[nataz]

You are right, we will never know for sure if it was pine tar, but to totally ignore circumstantial evidence seems silly. What are you trying to prove from your picture, that it is hard to tell in a vacuum what someone has on their hands?

Whee, whatever.

The situation wasn't in a vacuum, and knowing what we do know, I would suspect that it is more likely that the "unknown substance" was something along the lines of pine tar rather then m-16 residue, monkey sperm, or confetti. We have more then just a cut out picture of a hand. 

What if we take your picture, and add in the following known information...

- The picture is from a series called "National Guard"
- You know that Claire beckette, the hand in the picture, fires a SAW M-249 machine gun
- You know that SAW M-249 machine guns often leave residue on people's hands

Q: what do you think is on Claire Beckett’s hand?*

a) Dirt
b) Monkey sperm
c) Residue from a M-249 Saw Machine gun

*Correct answer is C
http://www.bu.edu/prc/document/beckett.htm

[Machinus]

Don't you think it's possible that they were cheating? "Bias" is having a desire for the answer to be something for any reason other than purely rational analysis. Liking a sports team is a perfect example of that.

[Komatteru]

Evidence: some pictures, words of sports casters, and other assorted people from across the diamond?  Definitive comments from Tony Larussa and the umpires? None.

Don't you think it's possible that they were cheating?

It could be pine tar, but it could very well be something else.  Since no one bothered to obtain evidence, no conclusion in regards to whether or not the substance was, in fact, pine tar, can be reached.  This is not the same as believing that it is not pine tar.  The difference is quite huge.

[Machinus]

That's why people use reasoning and judgment. Proof is often impossible. You have to ask yourself if it is more likely for a pitcher in the world series to

1) have a suspicious substance on his hand that is harmless and unrelated to multiple accounts (whether through photographs or otherwise)
2) be throwing illegal balls so he can win the world series

Obviously it's very difficult for a sports fan to weigh this question objectively.