A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to TV-Guy's comment:

     

    I've watched it from both angles five times. He is in motion every time that you first see him on camera. Otherwise the truck cameraman woild have to be showing six picture-in-picture at the moment of contact. That has never been done before.  No replay ever shows the first step than an outfielder makes. Not one.

    Bradley moves based on the pitch and the batter , so are you saying that the camera is on Bradley BEFORE contact. Baloney. Admit that you are wrong. Otherwise you are Softlaw.

     



    he is not talking about Jacoby in the OF doofus. he is clearly talking about Ells on third running on contact after his triple.

    please try to keep up

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to TV-Guy's comment:

    I've watched it from both angles five times. He is in motion every time that you first see him on camera. Otherwise the truck cameraman woild have to be showing six picture-in-picture at the moment of contact. That has never been done before.  No replay ever shows the first step than an outfielder makes. Not one.

    Bradley moves based on the pitch and the batter , so are you saying that the camera is on Bradley BEFORE contact. Baloney. Admit that you are wrong. Otherwise you are Softlaw.



    You haven't watched the replay then. There are two angles that clearly show Ellsbury off 3B and the pitch being thrown. Two of the angles they showed had the runner (Ellsbury) and the thrown pitch in clear view. Ellsbury took one step to the plate, hesitated and stopped, he was not even leaning towards home when the ball reached home. It is as clear as day, and it has nothing to do with arrogance or baseball knowledge. Just watch the plays and be truthful.

    I just asked my wife and daughter to watch and did not tell them my position on this issue. They both said he had stopped when the ball reached home plate. My wife said, "he waited until the all was hit before he started running." That by itself was not a "mistake", except most basbeall people think that if you run after contact you usually don't run if the ball is hit to 1B or 3B. That's not my beef, but it isn't. i like agressive baserunning and think Ellsbury could have scored on that play had he been just leaning towards or in a slight motion towards home plate as the pitch arrived at the plate.

    I wasn't trying to make a big deal out of it, but you guys just can't take even the slightest criticism of a Sox player.

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

     No replay ever shows the first step than an outfielder makes. Not one.

    And you call yourself "TV Guy"?

    Your absurdity is neverending. 

    The angle from the press box AND the angle from behind home plate both often have the CF'er in the frame as the pitch reaches the plate.

    Do you even have a TV or are you watching the games on the radio?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Admit that you are wrong. Otherwise you are Softlaw.

    This is more clownish than anything softy has ever said.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Ellsbury has always been a careful player. To a fault. He's still a great player.

    Now Victorino and Gomes, that's another story!

    By the way, I worked sports events on TV crews for years. Of course there are shots showing the OF positions at the time contact. It's called a "cover" shot by the way. And at the time of contact a director often cuts to it to give the audience the feel for the direction of the ball and the play in general. As we see the ball leave the infield don't we always see the OF in motion? I mean come on. The OF rarely makes even 2 steps before being on screen. That cut to the cover shot is generally 1/2 second or so after the hit. So we can see the OF running almost instantaneously.

    Often followed by a closer range shot in the area where the ball was hit. In baseball, each cameraman has an area to cover and generally aautomatic instructions on what to do with each hit.  One guy might be covering the pitcher and hitter combo and then follow the ball with a zoom for example. Another guy is working the stands for crowd shots. Another guy is doing the cover shot etc.

    A major game like this would probably involve at least 5 cameras. Something like the World Series maybe as many as 10-12. These are just estimates as I've never done MLB events specifically but I've done similar sports and entertainment programs.   

    I wouldn't worry about some of these guys Moon. They are obviously wasting your time. 

     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    The more we get to see Iglesias the more good things we see. For example snagging throws from the catchers and the OF to make tags. He is great at that. That is an important skill.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedsoxProspects. Show RedsoxProspects's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Bradley is going to have to do some damage or they are just going to keep throwing strikes. He seems to be connecting and just needs a few more to find holes or drop for him. He can give it a ride sometimes. That will help a lot. When he hits a few dingers the whole world will change for him. I think he is doing fine.

     
  11. This post has been removed.

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    Ellsbury has always been a careful player. To a fault. He's still a great player.

    Now Victorino and Gomes, that's another story!

    By the way, I worked sports events on TV crews for years. Of course there are shots showing the OF positions at the time contact. It's called a "cover" shot by the way. And at the time of contact a director often cuts to it to give the audience the feel for the direction of the ball and the play in general. As we see the ball leave the infield don't we always see the OF in motion? I mean come on. The OF rarely makes even 2 steps before being on screen. That cut to the cover shot is generally 1/2 second or so after the hit. So we can see the OF running almost instantaneously.

    Often followed by a closer range shot in the area where the ball was hit. In baseball, each cameraman has an area to cover and generally aautomatic instructions on what to do with each hit.  One guy might be covering the pitcher and hitter combo and then follow the ball with a zoom for example. Another guy is working the stands for crowd shots. Another guy is doing the cover shot etc.

    A major game like this would probably involve at least 5 cameras. Something like the World Series maybe as many as 10-12. These are just estimates as I've never done MLB events specifically but I've done similar sports and entertainment programs.   

    I wouldn't worry about some of these guys Moon. They are obviously wasting your time. 



    Thanks, boom. Now, expect this clown to go after your credentials, or "bias", or accuse you of being "softlaw if you don't admit you are wrong".

    I admit that all balls hit to CF are not always shown on an angle that shows the Cf at the time of contact. Several times the CF'er is shown an instant or two after contact. Even then, one can tell if the CF'er broke late, if he is just then beginning to move after the delay between the one angle without him in the frame and the one with him moving towards the ball.

    Look, I am not complaining about Ellsbury's as much as I used to. he has gotten much better, but I still think I is a slight weakness in his defense, and along with the big arm strength weakness, I'd prefer to have JBJ in CF. It's not a knock on Ellsbury to say this, since I think JBJ might be the best defensive CF'er in MLb right now. 

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to TV-Guy's comment:

    The play last night with the great play at SS by Iglesias and throw to firstbase should have been an out if Adria Gonzalez was playing first but he wasn't. Napoli made a decent stretch but his feet got mixed up. No big deal - we won the game. No crisis or need to scapegoat.



    Why do you assume anytime someone points out a slight mistake by one of our players, we are "scapegoating", "trolling" or a sectret yankee fan?

    There is never a crisis based on any one game or even a week. 

    I'm not an Ellsbury hater. Any player on this team who will be a FA after this year and is likely to walk, I'd have taken the same position.

    I have advocated extending Salty, but also have said that if he is not in our longterm plans, we should trade him for something that might help us for many years to come.

    I have defended Ellsbury over the years vs softy's bashing more than anyone on this site, except for possibly boom.

     
  14. This post has been removed.

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to RedsoxProspects' comment:

    Ellsbury has always been a careful player. To a fault. He's still a great player.

    Now Victorino and Gomes, that's another story!

    By the way, I worked sports events on TV crews for years. Of course there are shots showing the OF positions at the time contact. It's called a "cover" shot by the way. And at the time of contact a director often cuts to it to give the audience the feel for the direction of the ball and the play in general. As we see the ball leave the infield don't we always see the OF in motion? I mean come on. The OF rarely makes even 2 steps before being on screen. That cut to the cover shot is generally 1/2 second or so after the hit. So we can see the OF running almost instantaneously.

    Often followed by a closer range shot in the area where the ball was hit. In baseball, each cameraman has an area to cover and generally aautomatic instructions on what to do with each hit.  One guy might be covering the pitcher and hitter combo and then follow the ball with a zoom for example. Another guy is working the stands for crowd shots. Another guy is doing the cover shot etc.

    A major game like this would probably involve at least 5 cameras. Something like the World Series maybe as many as 10-12. These are just estimates as I've never done MLB events specifically but I've done similar sports and entertainment programs.   

    I wouldn't worry about some of these guys Moon. They are obviously wasting your time. 




    Thanks for the interesting info, Boom..

     
  16. This post has been removed.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to TV-Guy's comment:

    If he is steps into the pursuit of the ball when the camera first shows him then how can you surmise that he got a poor jump. It is similar to watching the 100 yard dash in track without a camera focused on the starting line.



    I can see how fast he is running after the split second or 1 second camera switch. If he is just getting started, one can rightfully assume, he got a slow break. I've seen OF'ers, including Ellsbury at near full speed by the time the camera switches to the fielder. I'm not sure why you can't see it on your 70 inch LED.

    Besides, I am not basing my position on plays not shown in frame, but I thought it wortwhile to mention it. I have seen enough baseball to know what you can and cannot see on TV and live in person. I have seen several late breaks by Ellsbury over the years- less and less as time goes by, but still more than what I consider his "fair share". There are also camera angles that show poor routes taken to the ball. I have not been saying it is a huge weakness of Ellsbury, but recently it still is a slight issue. I guess to you, this is blasphemy.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from hill55. Show hill55's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    The Red Sox this season already have spent four more days in first place than the Sox did in the entire 2012 season (when the Sox peaked at third place in the AL East):

    http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/BOS/2012-schedule-scores.shtml

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to TV-Guy's comment:

     

    Can Moon retract his post when he said that Ells wasn't leaning in towards the plate when Ichiro hit that blooper to RF that fell in.  Yet every camera view had Ells coming into the picture from left to right running at a high speed. Perhaps Ells was scratching his rear, leaning backwards, and blowing his nose. Give me a break, even Softlaw wouldn't be so ridiculous. Ampoule must be gullible also.

     

     

    What is your problem?

    "Leaning in towards home"? On a ball hit to the OF? Who cares what way he's leaning? You are a lost child.

    First, you confuse the baserunning comment I made with the OF play, and now you are lying about what I said. Here is what I wrote a few pages back. No where did I say Ellsbury got a bad break on the ball, in fact, I said the camera did not show it. My issue was wether or not he should have dove for the ball.

    I underlined the part to make it easier for you to keep up.

    Get real TVGUY, and FYI, I won't accept your apology or "retraction", even if you were man enough to offer it...

    If you do feel the need to apologize, hoiw about repaying me by staying away from this thread forever? Deal?

     

     

    Redsoxprospects,

    I noticed the same thing about Bradley on the replay--he saw the ball, turned his back, ran hard, then turned back to the ball to make the catch.  Very impressive.  He seems to exude confidence. 

     



    It was a very nice catch. 

     

    Anyone think Ellsbury could have caught that one he almost dived for?

    Close call.

    The announcer said he did the right thing rather than risk a flub, but Shane was right there. Had he missed it, it wouldn't have gone far.

     



    i don't think he could've gotten to it even if he dove. the ball landed to his left so he would have had to dive pretty far and reach across his body to try and catch it.

     

     



    It looked like he got a good break on the ball, but the TV angle switched to the other camera at the wrong instant, and they never showed the replay with Ellsbury in the frame as the ball was hit, as they normally do on bang-bang plays.

     

    It would have been a very difficult diving catch had he made it. I'm not criticizing him, but I do think that with the trajectory of the ball (not a lined shot), and Shane being right there to keep the ball from rolling for a triple, Ellsbury could have tried.

     
  20. This post has been removed.

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    Victorino is a terrific fielder...Ellsbury is spectacular athletically, but like many guys over the years, he is fundamentally lost. He makes up for his lack of fundamentals with blazing speed. Dwight Evans was so fundamentally sound (and guys like Ellis Valentine), but most are guys who aren't reading the ball correctly off the bat, or hesitate and then go. The greatest fielders don't have to have the speed to get to the ball, they use their fundamentals and ability to read the ball off the bat. Fred Lynn read the ball as well as anyone. Jim Edmonds same thing. But speedy outfielders are great and make great catches and it's about the speed to make up for some of those fundamentals they didn't learn early on.

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from jcri. Show jcri's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    TV Guy, I've only read you this evening but you sound rude, obnoxious, and surly.  This is a short sample of course, and Moon always encourages us not to judge on short samples but give it more time.  There are sometimes some big arguments here, but we try to respect the man even if we don't like his idea.  If you can do this you will be welcome.  

     

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    Victorino is a terrific fielder...Ellsbury is spectacular athletically, but like many guys over the years, he is fundamentally lost. He makes up for his lack of fundamentals with blazing speed. Dwight Evans was so fundamentally sound (and guys like Ellis Valentine), but most are guys who aren't reading the ball correctly off the bat, or hesitate and then go. The greatest fielders don't have to have the speed to get to the ball, they use their fundamentals and ability to read the ball off the bat. Fred Lynn read the ball as well as anyone. Jim Edmonds same thing. But speedy outfielders are great and make great catches and it's about the speed to make up for some of those fundamentals they didn't learn early on.


    +100

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to jcri's comment:

    TV Guy, I've only read you this evening but you sound rude, obnoxious, and surly.  This is a short sample of course, and Moon always encourages us not to judge on short samples but give it more time.  There are sometimes some big arguments here, but we try to respect the man even if we don't like his idea.  If you can do this you will be welcome.  

     



    Thanks for trying to help, and I should have just ignored TVGuy. He has a history behind him and several past identities and bannings.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from ampoule. Show ampoule's posts

    Re: A Realistic View at 2013: Part II

    In response to dannycater's comment:

    Victorino is a terrific fielder...Ellsbury is spectacular athletically, but like many guys over the years, he is fundamentally lost. He makes up for his lack of fundamentals with blazing speed. Dwight Evans was so fundamentally sound (and guys like Ellis Valentine), but most are guys who aren't reading the ball correctly off the bat, or hesitate and then go. The greatest fielders don't have to have the speed to get to the ball, they use their fundamentals and ability to read the ball off the bat. Fred Lynn read the ball as well as anyone. Jim Edmonds same thing. But speedy outfielders are great and make great catches and it's about the speed to make up for some of those fundamentals they didn't learn early on.




    Are these fundamentals 'learned' or is a lot of it genetic, natural talent?

    I think most of it is God given...just honed.  Otherwise, every player who really wanted to would be superior.

    It's like playing the piano.  Not all piano players, even if they practiced until the cows came home, are capable of playing Hungarian Rhapsody #2....even with years of teaching.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share