Ok, not to beat a dead horse, but...
I've been reading the Childress articles on the new mechanics. I have found one contradiction that I would like to discuss. In part III, the article begins with the "previously accepted" philosophies. One of those is that "umpires should always "play the percentages." That is BU "will take a position that will maximize his coverage of the next most likely important play."
This is followed immediately by the stemement that BU should never be in A. WHAT?
If I'm playing the percentages with no one on base, the next most likely play is at FIRST. Is A not the best position to make that call? Sacrifices in the two man crew, yes. But why in the world do you voluntarily (no pun intended considering this site) give up the most obviuos postion for the absolutely most possible play?
This makes no sense to me.
The floor is open.
I've been reading the Childress articles on the new mechanics. I have found one contradiction that I would like to discuss. In part III, the article begins with the "previously accepted" philosophies. One of those is that "umpires should always "play the percentages." That is BU "will take a position that will maximize his coverage of the next most likely important play."
This is followed immediately by the stemement that BU should never be in A. WHAT?
If I'm playing the percentages with no one on base, the next most likely play is at FIRST. Is A not the best position to make that call? Sacrifices in the two man crew, yes. But why in the world do you voluntarily (no pun intended considering this site) give up the most obviuos postion for the absolutely most possible play?
This makes no sense to me.
The floor is open.
