Farewell to the Metrodome

I was at the last two Minnesota Twins games ever at the HHH Metrodome, with tonight's elimination against the Yankees being the finale. While it was disappointing to watch yet more base path blunders from a team that is supposed to be known for its fundamentals, it clearly wasn't meant to be for this team this postseason. (Along with Nick Punto's impression of a class D co-rec softball player, I count Cuddyer failing to get to second on what should have been a hit to right a blunder, even though it was somewhat understandable.)

Those who know me for giving MLB umpires a hard time may wonder what I thought of Phil Cuzzi's gaffe in game 2. It was horrendous, to be sure. No one really knows whether it actually cost the Twins the game, but I am certain of two things: It is absolutely inexcusable, and would have been avoided with instant replay.

I got a kick out of the back-and-forth on the game logs, blogs, and message boards about that play. Twins fans complaining and looking somewhat foolish by over-reaching with their logic, followed by Yankees fans yelling back with a plethora of idiocy.

The most annoying counter to complaints about Cuzzi is the one that goes like this: "Oh yeah, well if the ump in Game 163 didn't F-up, you wouldn't even be in this game!"

First, it's a red herring. More specifically, aa kind of tu quoque - a logical fallacy commonly found in political arguments. Second, while both calls were incorrect, and the one that went against Inge in game 163 was arguably more costly to his team, as I stated in my previous post, the Inge call was entirely understandable. That kind of call (or no-call) cannot be reasonably held personally against the umpire. Not so for Cuzzi's blown call.

In a recent article by Ken Rosenthal, he claimed the Inge call was "perhaps even more egregious" than Cuzzi's. I agree with much of what Rosenthal was trying to say in the article, but seriously...egregious?? To borrow a line from Inigo Montoya, I do not think that word means what he thinks it means. And he makes a living as a writer?

I guess if Phil Cuzzi can make a living at about three times of my own by missing the one call he was put in there to make, then anything is possible.

But enough about the calls. You know what I found interesting about these last couple of nights? What might have really made a difference in this series is just the luck of the asymmetrical nature of ball park design.

If Yankee Stadium and the Metrodome swapped ball park dimensions (i.e., it was 343 down the left field line at Yankee, 318 at Metrodome, etc.), then Brendan Harris's triple in game 2 is a home run, and Texeira's game-winning home run would have been a ground rule double (assuming, of course, Cuzzi called it correctly). In tonight's game 3, Posado's home run would likely have been caught for an out.

I enjoy thinking of the "what ifs" to the point where I probably have built a reputation as an excuse-maker. But that's not what it's about at all. I just find it fun to look for the things announcers normally don't. There's a lot of luck involved in the game, even in a seemingly easy three-game sweep.

As a Twins fan, it's not too hard to go outside of the "good piece of hitting right there" box we Twins fans are so used to. But sometimes I like to get carried a way with it. What if Yankee Stadium and the Metrodome had the same dimensions as the old Polo Grounds? Well, then neither of A-Rods atomic bombs would have been home runs.

All right, I'll admit that's a bit much.

Go Vikings!

Edited to add: After finishing up this post, I went back to the Rosenthal bit to read some more of the comments. I had missed this one, obviously from my twin from whom I was separated at birth. Check out the last lines:

theoneeyedjack 10/11/2009 3:19:34 PM
While I agree with the overall point here, the Twins have nobody to blame but themselves for the loss, there are a couple of strangely incorrect statements. "the apparent double that was ruled foul by left-field umpire Phil Cuzzi." APPARENT double? Are you kidding me? It could not have been more obvious that Cuzzi blew the call. It hit Melky's glove in fair territory and clearly landed at least half-a-foot inside the foul line. Also to say that the umps rendered a "perhaps even more egregious decision on the Tigers just three nights earlier" that benefitted the Twins is absurd. More egregious? The ball barely grazed Inge's jersey. Even on super slow-mo replay, it was hard to tell whether there was actual contact from some angles. A blown call, but totally understandable how it was missed. It's impossible for me to see how Cuzzi blew the call on Mauer's double.
Kenny Boy, me thinks you need a dictionary. Apparent? Egregious? To paraphrase Inigo Montoya, "These words, I do not think they mean what you think they mean."

Game 163

I was in attendance at the Metrodome for the 12-inning thriller over Detroit Tuesday night. I will post some pictures when I get them loaded.

Being how hard I have been on MLB umpires, I would imagine some might wonder what I thought of the no-call on Brandon Inge's jersey getting hit by a pitch, which would have led to the go-ahead run for the Tigers. I have complained most vociferously in the past when the calls have gone against my Twins.

I suppose people would accuse me of bias when I say this: the umpire did the right thing. With 54,000 yelling, it's not reasonable to expect him to hear the jersey getting clipped. It was also not enough contact to be obvious visually. When faced with no evidence, the umpire must not make the HBP call. Believe me or not, but that's my opinion on the matter regardless of whom is victimized by the non-call.

In the 2003 Minnesota Corporate State Softball Tournament, my team finished second. During the championship game, I was playing first base. On one play, a grounder was hit against us, the infielder threw it wildly, and I awkwardly reached and made a desperate tag on the runner, barely getting him on his backside before he touched first. The umpire called him safe.

I didn't say a word, but the umpire could tell by my reaction that I was extremely disappointed in the call. So much so, that in the next inning, he apologized to me. I told him, "Hey, you made the call you had to make. It was a wild throw and I wasn't able to make an assertive tag. You were positioned correctly, and if you didn't see the tag, and I didn't give you reason to assume it was made, you had to call him safe." Or words to that effect.

What I was so upset at was that it came to that - a bad break - not that the ump failed me. Hearing Inge's post-game comments, it seemed like he rightfully felt a little bit the same way. Some blown calls you cannot blame the umpire for, but rather simple bad luck, like a bad hop or a lost ball in the sun (or roof, or lights).

Another thing about the Inge at bat: If the ump makes the right call and gives him the base, and the Tigers win, then I would be pushing for a new rule about players' jerseys. Inge looked like he was wearing a circus tent. In the spirit of the HBP rule, a player should not take a free base just for wearing a jersey fit for an NHL goaltender.

Oh, man, don't get me started on goalie equipment. Maybe this winter I'll write about that. In the mean time, go Twins. See if you can't steal one from the Yankees tomorrow.

Validated by a Yale Physics Professor

Never one to scream, "I told you so!," (I prefer to sing it while dancing and punching my arms wildly to the sky), I refer you to the September 19, 2009 issue of ESPN Magazine. (Is it still called ESPN the Magazine officially? I can't be bothered to find out myself.)

As if my ego needed any more of a boost (see previous post on the MGA tournament last week), there is a nice little article by Jeff Bradley on the art of sliding in MLB and how it will have an effect in the playoffs this year. On the bottom of page 47, there's a bit of a sidebar which I will share verbatim:

You've seen it a hundred times: Some speedster tries to beat out a dribbler by launching himself at first base, and the TV analyst says something like, "Never slide into first. It's faster running through the bag." Unless, of course, it isn't. Yale physics professor Robert Adair, author of The Physics of Baseball, theorizes that an adept dive might just get the runner there a hair faster. "We can assume, reasonably, that the forward stretch-out can be accomplished without significantly reducing the velocity of that center of mass." Adair explains, "Since the fingertips of the rotated runner will be farther ahead of the center of mass than the foot of the upright man, the dive will get there a foot or so sooner, roughly 1/30th of a second." Which makes you wonder whether runners should dive every time. But as the good doctor points out, "You're not likely to last the season that way."*

You know what's cool? I can't see one thing in the above paragraph that is inconsistent with my take on the subject as I posted here and again here. In fact, it supports my major points more than I could have hoped.

I doubt, however, that this will find its way into the mindset of the vast majority of recreation-level umpires, and thus they will still generally call anybody out for sliding head-first into first just because "everybody knows that studies show" you don't do that.

Everybody, that is, who is unaware of the Yale physics professor whose own studies show something else.

*Additional reporting by Anna Katherine Clemmons, Louise Cornetta, Molly Knight and Matt Meyers.

2009 Minnesota State Mid-Amateur Memories

It was another year of improvement for me at the Minnesota State Mid-Amateur golf tournament this year. I finished +15 for two rounds (82 - 78, par was 145 for the Minnesota Valley Country Club and Montgomery Golf Club), tied for 74th place, missing the cut by just three strokes. All in all, I was very pleased with my performance. You can always go back and think about the what-ifs, but that can go for the good holes as well. I will re-visit the what-ifs in a positive manner, hopefully learning from them, and upping the ante next year to hopefully make the cut.

There were 204 players this year (some had apparently withdrawn well before the start), and 199 showed up to play at least the first round. So 74th is pretty cool, compared to last year, when I finished in a tie for 133rd out of 218 players who at least played round one (there was a full field of 240 signed up, but many no-showed or officially withdrew before round one). I missed last years cut by 11 strokes.

I can't help but feel very positively about what this could mean for the future of my game. The greens were, to quote Gary McCord, bikini waxed. (There goes my chance of announcing at the Masters.) The weather was tame, but the set-up and pin placements more than made up for it.

Even the most disappointing parts will, in the long run, make me the better for it. Those include:

- letting the pressure of being -2 through the first five holes after starting eagle-bogey-birdie-par-par get me thinking too much about score and not enough about each shot
- finishing round one double-double; I really didn't feel I played the holes that badly; I just made the wrong mistakes on the wrong holes
- missing some putts short on day two; I am a lag-putter, and that's my game, but I wish I would putt uphill or flat putts a little more aggressively, especially the ones that aren't much longer than 12-15 feet

That's really about it for the negatives. Not just my takeaways concerning my own game, there are so many things positive about the whole experience, I highly recommend MGA tournaments for even casual golfers. Minnesota has one of the best state golf associations in the nation; you really are made to feel like someone important. Minnesota's softball and bowling associations could learn from the MGA.

To help build up my confidence as much as possible as I head to the off-season, I came up with some "fun facts" of how I did vs. the field:

1. Of the 14 people who competed with handicaps equal to or higher than mine (max handicap is 6.4 to enter; mine was 5.6 at time of entry), I placed higher than all of them.
2. Of the 49 competitors who had handicaps of 3.5 to 5.5, I placed higher than all but three.
3. Of the several (more than a dozen) players with "+" handicaps (better than scratch), I finished higher than four of them. One of them even shot an 88 one round.

That's how tough the courses played. Two-and-three handicappers were in some cases struggling to break 90. I'd be foolish not to feel pretty good, despite missing the cut, the double bogeys, etc. etc.

My goal is to someday be a scratch golfer. At this year's Mid-Am, although it won't show up on my handicap index card, I played like one.

Lastly, to complete my self-indulgence, I put together a hole-by-hole report of my tournament, with some other commentary, below. I find it interesting that I have a clearer memory of day one than day two, but that is probably because I had played the MVCC once before. It was my first time seeing the Montgomery course.


Day one, Monday, September 21, 12:30 PM, hole 1, MVCC

Hole 1 498 yards par 5. Drive about 290; 4 iron to back of green, just on fringe, about 15-18 ft from pin. Very slick right to left, downhill putt made for eagle.

Hole 2 172 yards par 3. Seven-iron one-hop on back of green into back bunker. Hole is about 20 feet downhill, thus the seven iron, but either adrenaline or misjudged breeze caused me to hit it long. Sand shot to about 20 ft., missed slick, slightly downhill putt, about 2 inches short and right. Tap-in bogey.

Hole 3 346 yards par 4. Hybrid (19-degrees) pushed to trees right. Low six-iron draw punch to 12-15 ft. Made left to right, slightly downhill birdie putt. Very slick again - just like eagle putt on one, it fell in center-cut with about two revolutions to spare.

Hole 4 350 yards par 4. Drive about 275; wedge to green, two-putts for par.

Hole 5 549 yards par 5. Very cautious drive into soft breeze about 240 yards, slight fade (OB was at left). From right rough, hit hybrid over trees to middle of fairway. Short iron to green, two-putts for par.

Hole 6 351 yards par 4. Hybrid through fairway into rough (hole is a sharp dogleg left). Wedge long to back of severely sloping back-to-front green. One of the two scariest putts I had both days; downhill and very left to right. Left it 3 ½ ft long and right. Very happy with leave, but lipped out come backer and made bogey.

Hole 7 150 yards par 3. Plays uphill and pin was a little back, so I hit a seven iron. Caught it a little thin, went edge of rough on back left fringe of the green. Thin chip about 12 feet long; missed par putt just off right edge, tapped in for bogey.

Hole 8 299 yards par 4. Had thoughts of trying to drive green, but decided to play safe. Oh the irony. Hit worst shot of day and one of two “30-handicapper-type” shots in tournament. Over-the top three would down the hill left, almost in hazard. Punched out to 150 - yes, 150 on a 299-yard hole. Playing for bogey, hit nine iron fine, but pulled a little into left bunker. No chance to get sand shot close, left it long, hit poor first putt very short, but made next for double bogey. Ouch.

Hole 9 448 yards par 4. Toughest hole on the course; a real doozy. Downhill blind landing to an uphill split-level green. Hit nice soft drive into breeze a out 250. Hit soft hybrid to back of green, where pin was, and two-putted from about 15 feet for par.

Out in 38, feeling pretty good, despite hole 8.

Hole 10 493 yards par 5. Hit OK drive about 275 into left rough. Hit five iron to right front of green. Poor pitch, three-putt from about 25-30 feet for bogey.

Hole 11 230 yards par 3. Was playing 223 IIRC, hit hybrid just short left. Poor chip to about 10 feet, two putts for bogey.

Hole 12 146 yards par 3. Can’t quite recall how long it was playing, but I think I hit nine iron. Short-sided self to right, thin chip about 12-15 feet past hole. Two putts for bogey.

Hole 13 394 yards par 4. Hit driver in fairway, about 130 out. Left face slightly open on wedge to green, caught false front at right, rolled off green. “Texas wedge” to about 15 feet, two putts for bogey.

Hole 14 411 yards par 4. Conservative fade drive to about 160, seven iron to about 8 feet, made birdie putt. Felt good that for the second time today I was able to “stop the bleeding.” For now…

Hole 15 556 yards par 5. Pulled drive short and into left rough, approach back to fairway (hybrid I think), sand wedge to green, two putts for par.

Hole 16 371 yards par 4. Pulled drive to rough just in front of fairway bunker. Sand wedge to green, two putts form about 15 feet for par.

Hole 17 423 yards par 4. Pushed drive to right rough, six iron, which proved to be too much club, to behind green. Difficult pitch; debated trying a Mickelson flop with 64-degree wedge. Hit instead 58-degree wedge which proved to be wrong choice, long and into front rough. Just no way to stop it. Chipped fairly poorly from there, two-putted from about 12 feet for double bogey.

Hole 18 600 yards par 5. With OB right, I planned a full drive over trees left, hoping to hit a fade. Executed perfectly to fairway. Tried to cut a hybrid shot from there, but pulled it and clipped trees left. It ended up in fairway, but about 225 out. Hit hybrid from there and caught just a little heavy to about 15 yards in front of green. Chipped long, and left other of two scariest putts of round. I knew I had to just “get it rolling” from about 15 feet, but put too much pace on it, and it rolled 8-10 feet long. Missed come backer as it stopped about two inches short and right. Tapped in for back-to-back double bogeys to finish at +9 with an 82.

Day two, Tuesday, September 21, 8:30, start on hole 10, Montgomery Golf Club

Hole 10 415 yards par 4. A 260-yard drive or longer would have been fine to cut the corner of the dogleg left. Hit the drive about 270, but did not cut the corner enough, and went through the fairway. Six or seven iron to left of green. Nice chip to a foot. Tapped in for par.

Hole 11 398 yards par 4. Don’t really remember much, except I missed the fairway, missed the green, and two-putted for bogey.

Hole 12 301 yards par 4. Hybrid over 175 yard hazard carry to fairway (too risky by the green to try to reach in one). Sand wedge to green, but short - about 25-30 feet form hole. Hit first putt long, missed about 6-footer and made bogey.

Hole 13 352 yards par 4. Mature trees surround the fairway and render hitting driver a foolish choice. Hit hybrid, but pushed right among trees . Hit punch 4 or 5 iron to close to the green. Chipped somewhat poorly; two-putted for bogey.

Hole 14 171 yards par 3. Was playing 173 IIRC; took a little of a six iron and hit to 12 feet behind hole. Made putt for birdie.

Hole 15 498 yards par 5. Hit nice low draw with driver to about 210 out from a back-placed pin. Decided to hit 4 iron instead of hybrid because it looked like OB came into play to both sides of and back of green. Worst case with 4 iron would be to leave short…which I did because I came up real bad and topped it about 150 yards. Sand wedge to about 15 feet, left birdie putt on edge and tapped in for par.

Hole 16 390 yards par 4. Hit drive through fairway (dogleg left) to about 125. Hit wedge short of green. So-so chip, but made 8-foot putt for par.

Hole 17 216 yards par 3. Slightly uphill hole was playing about 223. Hit hybrid into very slight breeze to about 20 feet behind hole. Nice lag putt to about four inches past; tapped in for par.

Hole 18 548 yard par 5. Pushed drive about 250, nice hybrid over trees to about 80, but still in rough. As I’m waiting to hit, one of my playing partners hits third shot, a seven iron from about 150 after troubled drive. Shot lands right of pin, I applaud his shot, then look back at my situation. Thought I hit a nice 58-degree wedge, but rolled of left of green. Too strong with the chip, two putts for bogey. It was as I went to try my par putt that I learned my playing partner’s third shot actually went in for eagle (I was asking him where his ball marker was so I wouldn’t step on his line).

Hole 1 373 yards par 4. Don’t remember how I played this; only that I one-putted for par.

Hole 2 483 yards par 5. Pulled drive into rough. Green protected by bunker where I’m hitting from, so hit six iron to about 80 yards. Hit so-so 58-degree wedge. Two putts for par.

Hole 3 184 yards par 3. Hole was marked at 188 IIRC, hit five iron making sure not to over-hit. Fanned it a bit right and found I was long as well. All three of us were surprised to see we went long. One of the guys actually went OB. Went back to tee to hit third shot and said he paced it off twice at 182. Hmmm. Anyway, I chipped to about four feet and made par. Partner who went OB three-putted from 3 ½ feet for a quad and was visibly upset.

Hole 4 392 yards par 4. Dogleg right around lake. Hit soft driver through fairway, hit seven iron through green. Hit thin chip and two-putted for bogey. Laying partner who took quad at previous hole was further upset when he couldn’t find ball and on-site official wasn’t watching from the fairway. (To be fair, he was probably assigned that position to spot for players on adjacent fairway.) Player picked up his ball when he was lying 3 off the green, shook our hands, and withdrew from the tournament. Was +6 on the day, +12 for the tournament at the time. Cut ended up being +13, but as he is a scratch handicapper, just making the cut was probably not what he had in mind.

Hole 5 378 yards par 4. It’s about a 230-yard carry over water to cut the dogleg left. Took driver over water, but through fairway. Sand wedge to uphill green. Just missed 12-15 foot birdie; tapped in for par.

Hole 6 361 yards par 4. Downhill with OB left, water hazard at about 295 left and another at 240 right. Hit hybrid to avoid both, but hit it low and it right and it ran into weeds by hazard. Took unplayable lie with stroke penalty. Hit 9 iron stiff to 4 feet, made par putt.

Hole 7 173 yards par 3. Playing about 165, with bunker in front of green. Pulled seven iron a bit, left very tough downhill, left-to-right, 3-footer which I missed. Shortest putt I missed for the whole tournament, but one of only two less than 5 feet that I missed.

Hole 8 524 yards par 5. Drove right, laid up with 6 or 7 iron, 58-degree wedge to 12-15 feet. Left slippery birdie putt 2 inches short for tap-in par.

Hole 9 406 yards par 4. Drive to about 150, caught eight iron to shot slightly heavy uphill green. Chipped to about twelve feet below hole (hole was atop ridge). Left putt three inches short, tapped in for bogey. Out in 39, in in 39, +6 78 for day, +15 160 for tournament for a tie for 74. Missed cut by 3 strokes.

Giving the State Mid-Am Another Shot

Next week is the annual MGA State Mid-Amateur golf tournament, being held at Minnesota Valley Country Club and Montgomery Golf Club. I entered last year and placed 133rd out of 240 golfers (including withdrawals and DQs). My goals going into these things is always to 1) not finish last, and 2) not embarrass myself.

This year I'm going to add one more goal: to hit every shot with complete focus and dedication. With my mental game, I don't think I have a prayer of accomplishing that, but I'm going to try.

Last year, out of 240 entrants, I ranked tied for 225th in handicap. This year I'm taking a 5.6 index into the tournament, good enough for a tie for 198th with one other out of 213 entrants. I hope the drop in field size (the last two years both had full fields of 240) isn't a trend, like the corporate softball tournaments I wrote about last month. I think it's likely due to how far apart the two host courses are, and how un-"famous" the Montgomery course is. Not that the MVCC is famous, but it is a nice, private club, which is often the appeal of these tournaments - you get to play a course you otherwise couldn't without connections.

The contestants include at least one former Minnesota Gopher Hockey star, the brother of a British Open champion, a former Drake University golf teammate of Masters Champion Zach Johnson, numerous past and present Minnesota Gopher golf team members, the 2004 Twin Cities Golf Tour Player of the Year (heh heh), and the namesake of the guy who composed the music to the Toy Story movies and the 1970s hit "Short People."

I would love to set a goal of making the cut (top 60 plus ties make the cut and play the final round), but the problem with that is it would put my focus on my cumulative score, instead of each shot at hand, which is a surefire way to play horribly.

The guys I'm matched with for the two days have handicap indexes of 0.0 and 2.1. Even if I don't play well, at least I can maybe learn a thing or two.

One other goal: I love these tournaments, but this year I vow to enjoy it more than any other MGA tournament I've played in.

The first tee jitters start next Monday at 12:30 PM at the MVCC. On the plus side, there is no OB or hazard in play on hole one - only trees. My nerves can handle the prospect of starting the tournament by blasting one in the wrong fairway or into the woods. OB stakes are an entirely different story.

A Couple Things Bugging this Ex-Radio Jock and Sports Announcer

Twins announcers Dan Gladden and John Gordon (again): The other day (I think it was Monday), Wrench and Puker were gabbing from the start of and throughout Jason Kubel's at bat about - get this irony - classic baseball announcers. Herb Carneal was mentioned, along with a long line of New York, Baltimore, and Cleveland announcers over the years, whom they did not name, nor share any real insight as to what they thought made these announcers great.

I certainly agreed with them on the props to Carneal, but then the irony of the subject matter was driven home when Gladden interrupted the boredom and said, "Here's the 3-1 pitch to Kubel."

Yes, four pitches had been thrown to Kubel, complete with crowd reactions, and the sound of the catcher's mitt popping, with the listener only able to guess what was happening on the diamond, before Gladden stopped to actually call a play.

Perhaps the pop of the catcher's mitt I thought I heard was the sound of Carneal rolling over.

KDWB's Dave Ryan and Gary Spivey (again): Dave took a call from a "truther" yesterday morning, and I was at first thankful when Ryan put the truther in his place. To my dismay, however, Ryan admitted to the truther that he hasn't done a lick of research on the claims these nuts are making, never heard of WTC building #7 collapsing, and that he has no time for the subject other than to simply dismiss it all out of hand, calling them all crazy nut-jobbers (or words to that effect) for believing this nonsense.

Hey, I'll agree with him on that last point, but only because I've read up on it, and have come to that conclusion logically. Dave, however, simply mocked and ridiculed the bunch, and in a moment of even more irony than the Gladden/Gordon incident, referred to his experience working with alleged psychic Gary Spivey to support his position.

Note to Dave: I realize part of your rant was a "bit," an act, and just a way to get more laughs from people thinking, "Oh , there goes Dave again." But seriously, using Gary Spivey, the guy who proclaims to exercise demons over the phone and radio airwaves, to drive home your point about other people believing ridiculous things, makes your IQ appear well below triple digits.

As a former radio announcer, I'm thinking maybe that estimate is a little high.

Watching Baseball on Vacation

Here I am at White Birch timeshares in Breezy Point, MN, after playing five rounds of golf so far, the weather has been super, fishing was great, and I still have six days before I have to go back to work, and all I am inspired to do is blog about yet another laughable display of ineptitude by a Major League Baseball umpire crew.

First: In the top of the sixth inning, with one out, they correctly call an out on a catch by Michael Cuddyer off the bat of Ramon Castro. But the ball moved a little in Cuddyer's glove, Ozzie Guillen appealed to the umps, and Castro was awarded a double.

Second: In the bottom of the sixth, Jason Kubel was up with the bases loaded and two outs, and had a 3-1 count. He took ball four, even by old school National League standards, yet the ump called strike two. (A little like the one that, admittedly, ended the game in the Twins' favor the other night against Texas, only Kubel's take wasn't as close.)

Fortunately for the Twins (and the umpire crew, if they have any pride, which is questionable the way things have gone this year), Brian Duensing pitched out of the sixth and Kubel singled in two runs, foiling Guillen's strategy of intentionally walking Justin Mourneau just before. Mourneau, IMHO, would have been the easier out, but that's kind of the way it's gone over the years for Guillen in the Metrodome.

I've noted it before - Major League umpires have it too easy, while seeming to have such a hard time of it. Balls and strikes should never go this route, but for plays like the Cuddyer catch, it is high time for instant replay in baseball.