Still thinking about that ejection. . . and I'm sure it's better to let it go, but I can't help myself.
Reading the stories today, and it appears as if the Jim Edmonds version of events is going to be the one that is used for received wisdom.
The New York Times' report is typical:
Edmonds said he asked Cuzzi why the pitch was called a strike when it had not been a strike earlier. He said Cuzzi responded by telling him not to argue with him. Edmonds told Cuzzi again that it was not a strike and said that he needed to do a better job, then was ejected.
There has been a good deal of sympathy for Edmonds from writers like Miklasz. But the problem is, Edmonds appears to be lying when he says, I just asked why that was a strike when it hadn't been all day. . .I never cursed him, not once."
I don't know if you've gone back to the tape, but I just did, and Thom Brannaman was pretty straightforward about it: "he dropped one of the magic words. . .you could read his lips."
Unfortunately I couldn't, but I did notice the older lady with the orange blouse in the front rows who put both hands over her mouth when she heard what Edmonds said.
And while I'm not het up enough to print it here, you can read what one commenter at Baseball Musings thought Edmonds had said.
Cuzzi's actions and body language also suggest that he was waiting for Edmonds to say something out of the zone, so to speak, and that when he got it, he immediately tossed Edmonds out. It didn't look like all of a sudden Cuzi just had enough.
Again, I know I should just let this go, but it looks like there's a truth here that's not getting printed by the mainstream media.
It looks like Edmonds is lying.
I still think Cuzzi shouldn't have tossed him, but I think he's lying.
Anyone care to bolster me?
Shoot me down?