Last night I learned no one wants to hear the technical truth when riled up by emotion. It won't be any different today but I wouldn't be a soulless automaton if I shied away from your irrational anger. We'll start with the controversial play then if you are still around, talk about the game. You can skip to ON TO THE GAME if you are the type to get riled up.
So the rules officially state that a runner has to be in his lane - in foul territory before he tries to touch first base - in order to not to interfere with throws to the bag. Now you are probably thinking runners don't usually run like that and you'd be right, because over the years umps have focused on the "not interfere" part of the rule. It's nearly impossible, outside of running into the first baseman, to interfere with a throw from an infielder based on how you run from home to first. That accounts for the vast majority of groundballs.
It doesn't NEVER come into play though. When a ball is hit in front of the plate, especially near the first base line, the runner does need to run as noted. And over time baseball has developed a kind of set of rules for this play. The runner runs in a way to try to force a bad throw. This usually means right on the foul line, or just to the right of it, but it's the runner's discretion. The fielder (usually the catcher or pitcher) decides to throw it as they want. Because nearly always the first baseman and the fielder can line up an unimpeded throw that usually means they try to throw past the runner. But if they feel the runner is really in the way of an easy throw, they will throw it into the runner as a way to show the umpire that the runner was in the way. Usually when you see this the ball is pretty close to the plate and the runner is near the grass.
Ok so where does this leave the play last night? Well Trea chose to run completely inside the foul line. This was probably, as I noted, to try to force a less comfortable throw, but it is possible that this is just how he always runs. I go with the former because in part the ball was hit far enough from the plate, really a few feet will do, that Trea knows there's a open sight line between the fielder and the first baseman. And the Astros do as teams normally do, they try to throw past Trea. But there's a bad throw and it ends up at the middle of the bag just as Trea is crossing it. By letter of the law this is what happened :
- Trea ran where he was not supposed to
- Trea interfered with the throw
so it's an out. It just is. Even though Trea wasn't looking to physically block the throw (at least it doesn't seem likely he was) and the Astros weren't trying to make a play that Trea was interfering with, what ended up happening on the field WAS interference.
Now they probably should have just let it go for the reasons above. It's only a bad throw that forces the issue so you rule in a way you can throw some vague interpretation at and everyone isn't happy but most people shrug and move on because everything else about the play was how baseball is played. But once they called him out, they couldn't go back on it. They called the rule as is written.
The best analogy I can come up with is making a left hand turn while driving. Almost everyone (but not me!) will cut off part of the other lane while making a left hand turn if no one is in that lane. Hell, they do it if you are in the lane and not pulled up all the way. Technically this is a crime. You are in the other lane. But no police officer would ever ticket you for this unless the offense was egregious. The point of the rules is to avoid an accident and if you are just cutting off a little bit, well that's hardly a cause. Now let's say you are making your normal left hand turn and someone comes in in that lane not paying attention and hits you. If the accident takes place in that lane you are at fault. And you'll get charged with it to! Even though it was only caused by the other person not paying attention. Even though as soon as your wreck is cleared away people will keep doing the same thing. You were somewhere you weren't supposed to be. You were in an accident.
I saw some calls for robot umps after this. Robot umps wouldn't save this. Robot umps would make it worse. Prepare for a guy called out on a throw from 2nd because his foot was on the wrong side of the foul line 60 feet up the bag. I saw some calls of bias. Bah. Crazy conspiracy talk. I saw some calls to change the rules. OK but everything I saw tossed out adds more room for interpretation by the umps, not less, which would only lead to more problems. Did he intend to interfere? Is there a clear path from the fielder to first? Don't make things greyer in my opinion.
ONTO THE GAME
Strasburg adjusts - Strasburg said he was tipping in the first and he did things to adjust for that. I guess that's possible but if so I want to know what the sign was for hittable middle middle fastballs and why did they put that sign down, because that's what Springer and Bregman hit. Based on pitch selection and location it seems the actual narrative is Strasburg leaned on his curve more, using his fastball as a secondary pitch inside and out (so misses would be balls not crushed) to keep the Astros off balance. One of the key moments in the turnaround was 2nd and 3rd with Altuve up. Three straight swings as if he was throwing a fastball. Three straight offspeed pitches. Strikeout.
Could the Astros have adjusted? Yes but. I say that because usually when you adjust in this case (think about facing Corbin) you take and you make them walk you. But Stras has control of his curve so this will only lead to a lot of swings in counts from behind. So you can sit on the curve, try to hit it, and force him to throw fastballs again. But here you are asking them to hit a good pitch enough that he gets into trouble, and it's not like Stras is never throwing a fastball, so you are going to behind on some pitches you want to hit. It's a tough situation when a top notch pitcher has his stuff going. Stras didn't have everything right but one pitch, when its as good as his curve, is enough.
The Nats thrive when they don't have to make tough bullpen decisions because what they have is a lot of choices that run from ok to bad, nothing great. Once again the starter kept tough decisions off the table
Hinch gets emotional - The Astros went into last night with two goals. Win the Series. Get Verlander off the World Series schneid. But to do the latter Verlander needs to go at least 5 and he was surviving innings. He should have been on a quick pull in the 5th and when Eaton got hold of one to tie it up, he should have been pulled. But Houston wanted to give their veteran guy his W so he stayed in. He got Rendon out but hung another one to Soto. Another homer. He STILL wasn't pulled at this point (which really shows you what they were doing) and Kendrick nearly put one out in right field.
The playoffs in general, and definitely the World Series, is not time to be sentimental. If a guy doesn't have it he needs to go. Let this be a lesson for the Nats to take to heart tonight in case Max doesn't look right.
Dueling bat carries - don't care in the least.
Home field fails again This marks the 6th game in a row the home team has lost and that has never happened before in the World Series. The Astros are in particular having a hard time at home if you go back to the ALCS. Scoring an average of 3 runs a game at home, but 5 1/3 on the road. We know there has never been a 7 game WS road sweep. Well I checked and there hasn't been a 7 game road sweep of any kind in the baseball playoffs or any series that started with 6 straight road wins at all.
There have been only 5, by my count, 5 game series that started with 4 road wins. We'll go through all of them
The first was in 1981 where the split season East winner Yankees took two in Milwuakee from the East winner Brewers, who promptly took two back. It was a tight series with 5-3, 3-0, 5-3, and 2-1 scores. In game 5 still in NY in this 2-3 format series, the Brewers started with a 2-0 lead but the Yankees came through with 4 in the 4th started by a 2 run shot by October hero Reggie Jackson. The Brewers would close to 4-3 in the 7th but the Yankees would hit another homer to go back up by two in the bottom of the inning, then put the game away with two more in the 8th.
The Yankees were in it again in 2001 against the A's in a 2-2-1 format. They lost two at home, Oakland did the same (G3 was the flip play* where Jeter's backing up of an errant throw in the 7th preserved a 1-0 lead that would hold for the final score) but in this format the Yankees would have the final game. Oakland would take a 2-0 lead but the Yankees would tie it up in the bottom of the second. They'd tack on another in the 3rd and 4th, Oakland would get one in the 5th. Mulder would get replaced by Hudson who would give up a solo shot in 1 1/3. Clemens was replaced by the Yankees pen who would shut it down and they'd win at home.
In 2010 we got out first all road win series as the Rangers and Rays battled it out in a generally unmemorable series, still 2-2-1, each game won by at least 3 runs. The Rangers won two in Tampa fairly convincingly but not inspiring, the Rays did the same to the Rangers, with Game 3 being arguably the best game of the series. The Rangers carried a 1-0 lead into the 6th a 2-1 lead into the 8th before the pen gave up 5 in the last two. But they'd win that 5th game in Tampa chipping away at David Price holding a lead for all but a few outs in the b3 and t4 where the Rays tied it up.
After not seeing it for years we'd get a quick return of it in 2012. The Reds and Giants would go all road (poor Dusty). Much like the 2010 series the leads were gotten pretty early and held making for a even but uninteresting series, except for Game 3. Game three was pitching dominated. The Reds took a lead in the bottom of the 1st, the Giants tied it up in the top of the 3rd and then dueling zeros through the end of 9. In fact the Giants were no hit through 5 2/3rd (they scored bc of hbp, walk, bunt, sac fly) and from the run scoring single in the first the next hit by either team was that no-hitter breaker. There would never be a serious threat and the Giants scored their run with two groundball singes, a passed ball, and then an error. Ugh. The Reds didn't recover and 2-3 series would end with a 3 game sweep in Cincy.
The last time we'd open a 5 game series (2-2-1 format. Can't they stick with one?) with four road wins was a complete turnaround from these last two - the vastly entertaining Blue Jays / Rangers series from 2015. Homers, a 14 inning game, and the final one which featured a wild 7th, a controversial call for the Rangers, giving them a 3-2 lead** and a statement FU homer by Bautista with a bat flip and then bench clearing. Ah so good. Anyway the order was two in Toronto by Texas, two in Texas by Toronto, but the Blue Jays getting the only home win when it mattered most.
So 5 5 game series that opened with 4 road wins. 3 home teams taking it, 2 road teams. Some close, some not. Some entertaining, some not so much. What happens tonight?
*Here it is! This was a total Henley send. If he hits either cutoff man Giambi is out by a good 10 feet. Even missing it I think Giambi just beats out a 4 bouncer to the plate. Terrible send
**Russell Martin hit Shin-Soo Choo's bat on a throw back to the mound. Odor scampered home. Since he was still in the box it wasn't a dead ball and he also wasn't trying to interfere the Rangers were given the run (correct call!) but the fans threw trash all over the place and delayed the game.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
47 comments:
@Harper. 1. Maybe it’s just because I’m a lawyer, but I feel like when these things come up in sports, everybody falls into two camps (1) the *call* was right because you’re technically following the rule; (2) the call was wrong because the rule is dumb....and the fact is, this country is largely ruled by common law (I.e. the practical way we enforce rules and their precedents), not statutory technical rules. In cases where there is DISCRETION, it’s *all* common law almost that is relevant. And the common law on this rule is (1) nobody calls this because every runner runs where Trea does (I don’t agree with you at all that Trea purposefully ran into fair territory....he’s fast enough to beat that out anyway, and he literally ran in a perfect straight line from the batters box to the bag, where he hit it with his left foot with his right foot in foul territory). Disagree? Watch the play from the World Series last year when Bellinger did the exact same thing and ran in the line and got hit and no interference was called. (2) the umpires 99% of the time realize that the rule on the books is stupid (kind of like how loitering rules still on the books are arcane and stupid and not get enforced), and don’t enforce it. Because the bag is in fair territory, the plate is in fair territory, and to run from fair, swerve into a box, then swerve to hit the base you’re liable to get hurt or time it so u use your left foot...it’s nonsense. So they ignore it, apparently except for now. My point is this: you can argue that by the letter of the rule it’s an out. Fine. But that’s kind of irrelevant when discussing whether it’s the right/appropriate CALL. An umpire there needs to not have a trigger finger to invoke an unusual, stupid rule that needs badly to be changed. (NOTE: here’s an easy fix. Require that hitters be in the box by time you’re halfway down the line—time for RHH—and extend the base into a double base that they can run through in foul territory. This also would prevent foot on foot injuries which happen sometimes on pitcher coverings, etc. but make no mistake. This call was absolutely INSANE to make, whether or not baseballs statutory code allows you to make it. It allows discretion. So use your discretion and use common sense (I don’t mean after the fact. I mean initially, and if necessary after consulting with the other umps). It was a horrible call, whether or not it was technically within the bounds of the rule. And MLB should be insanely relieved it didn’t make the difference. It will definitely be changed in the off-season I predict. You can’t have a rule where the runner is supposed to run from fair territory to foul to fair (with the left leg). [Moreover, you’re really going to REWARD the Astros for a hideous throw by having Gomes on 1st instead of 2nd? What? Where is the common sense discretion there.]
Finally.....I kind of hate that this is what 90% of the postgame conversation will be when Strasburg delivered the greatest (in terms of stakes and quality vs THAT lineup) pitching performance in Nats history, and frankly the best postseason pitching run since MadBum (yup, better than Cole), and the only guy to go 5-0 in a postseason.....and the Soto-Rendon games. Robo umps wouldn’t fix this....but umpires have just been doing a garbage job this World Series. And you can tell since we’re talking about them so much. (PS Good forHolbrook to add this to his legacy of making himself the story with another nonsensical, overly activist officiating following his infield fly rule crap storm in 2012 WC game.
Turner is a right handed batter and ran straight to first base, was hit with a bad throw, and was called out. That's inexcusable in the World Series and this came from the same exact umpire who called the "outfield fly rule" on Atlanta several years ago. This isn't kickball - you can't throw a ball at a runner to get him out.
It's extremely difficult to not interpret the call and how it was handled by MLB as payback for Nationals fans booing and chanting at MLB's guest on Sunday night.
https://twitter.com/enosarris/status/1189407084258873346
Holbrook was wrong last night. MLB was wrong not to overturn it. End of story.
Davey did absolutely the right thing last night and his players love him for standing up for them. Great manager. Should have told Hale to let Stras finish the game though!
Sorry. Why does it lead to more room for interpretation by umps to simply extend the base into foul ground so it is flush with the box and you don’t have to drift leftward from foul territory? That’s not a rule change. Just make the player run through the bag in foul territory. If he’s in the box when there’s contact, no interference.
The only thing I care about WRT carrying the bats: you just know there are people out there who thought Bregman's action was hilarious but were mad as hell about Soto. Last night I found a tweet saying "Soto is disrespectful mocking our MVP," and another saying "Bregman didn’t do it in a disrespectful manner unlike Soto being really petty with it." But I left it at that. Also plenty of people denouncing Soto without saying anything about Bregman.
I'd categorize both of these actions as "kind of dumb." Not "the most disrespectful thing I've ever seen." Nor would I call for either player's suspension. But that's my opinion, and other people apparently have theirs.
Saying this was due to payback for Nats fans booing trump is totally totally nuts sorry. Just utter conspiracy nonsense.
From a background perspective on the botched 7th inning call, what BxJaycobb said.
From a pro perspective, a pro with no stake in this, Josh Donaldson said it best:
"That's as bad as it gets. Rewarding a bad stretch and a bad throw."
Long term lurker on the blog, but certainly don't understand baseball to the same level as most of you. One thing I haven't seen explained (unless I just missed it), why was Gomes sent back to 1st? Even if the throw to 1st is made cleanly and Turner is out, there is no chance they then turn and get Gomes at 2nd.
Could not agree more with BxJaycobb said. The ump misinterpreted the intent of the law, and rewarded a bad throw. Joe Torre's mushmouth explanation certainly didn't help.
You're wrong here Harper, the call wasn't that he ran down the line in fair territory, it was that he interfered with the player trying to make the catch. The running down the line part was some revisionist history. The reviews show he was right where he was supposed to be when he reached the bag and that he beat the throw. Nearly everyone agrees that it was a horrible call, feel like you're just trying to be contrarian here to boost your soulless automaton cred.
I'm not disagreeing with your assessment of the interference call. Tom Verducci made more or less the same argument on Fox.
Here in Toronto, I have access to both the Fox broadcast, and the International broadcast with Matt Vasgersian and Buck Martinez, and Martinez saw it another way. He acknowledged Turner's route was technically inside the foul line, but noted that baseball has by custom ignored that violation. (See "2)" in the paragraph below.)
Instead, he focused on what happened at the base, specifically: 1)that Turner's foot had already hit the bag before the thrown ball hit Turner; and 2)Gurriel, his left (and wrong)foot on the bag, was blocking Turner from stepping on first base which is ENTIRELY in fair territory.
Martinez clearly disagreed with the call. (And Joe Torre didn't help matters in his post-game reading of the rules.)
Harper you're trying too hard here! Go Nats!
BX - that doesn't - that's a good suggestion. and something we can probably all agree on until there's the first "did that ball hit the bag in fair or foul territory" call that matters.
Anon 8:38 - from my understanding it's because there is no official awarding of a base based on this scenario. Like all the things you see - ball in dugout gets you this, ground rule double gets you this - are all codified. No rule, no award
Apparently this was the first time there have been 6 road wins in a series not just in the MLB but NHL and NBA too.
@Harper. You are wrong. Just wrong. I used to umpire baseball, and I still keep a current copy of the Rules of Baseball handy every year.
Joe Torre is embarrassing himself and all of MLB with this pathetic defense of the indefensible. The contact was created by an errant throw and Gurriel sticking his scoop into Trea Turner's legal base path in an attempt to field it. The fact that Trea was running a few inches inside the line is irrelevant because his path was in no way impeding the line of sight from Peacock to first base. The base is in fair territory, thus the runner MUST step into fair territory on his last step to legally contact and occupy the base. The ball arrived at Turner's final step, and the THROW caused the contact.
There was no interference....if anything was to be called it would have to be obstruction against Gurriel, and awarding Turner second base. In truth, no call was the right call. Errant throw creates contact, ball gets away, runners advance, PLAY ON. Joe knows this and if he doesn't man up and make some "after further review" statement owning up to the fact that the umpire's judgment was in error and the rules were blatantly mis-applied, baseball will suffer and Torre will lose every ounce of credibility he has ever had. The whole world knows the truth, Joe. Be a man and own it.
One thing I saw today on Dem Internets is that just before Soto's homerun, Verlander went up and in to him. Soto started to do the Soto Shuffle and Verlander is seen shaking his head and saying "Not here." Next pitch, Soto nearly hit the scoreboard.
Also, how about the wonderful announcing crew of Smoltz and Buck having zero opinion on the validity of the call on Turner. Wow, really insightful stuff there guys.
WRT robot umps: I don't think a robot ump would be called upon to make a call regarding interference. I think the argument, er, discussion there is about balls and strikes. Leave Blue on the field to make the calls that are better (for now) left to human beings.
And while I'm on the subject, last night someone asked me what I thought about robot ump. I figure that if they DON'T implement the robots then take away the means by which everybody else can see when the umps screwed up. Otherwise, let the technology help the umps out.
All or nothing.
I have to agree with Harper, once made, the call was correct. You probably can't go back and correct it if you are NY, though from the time it took I bet they might have been trying.
The problem is, the call should never, ever, ever, be made. Ever. Not in that situation. Its asking the runner to change how he runs knowing a bad throw is coming. It allows the fielder to game the system by making a bad throw. It puts too much in the hands of the umps.
If that is the call, OK. Call it consistently. But realize that like 40 percent of infield singles are now interference and automatic outs. The bunt really is dead if that is the rule. To put it in a different perspective, its as if having not called PI at all in an NFL game, a ref suddenly decided a tiny bit of hand checking on a hail mary pass should count as PI.
So the call is made. Its clear on replay its ticky-tacky. Technically correct but not needed. You've really hamstrung the Nats here. They go from second and third none out, to guy on first one out. Way different situations in a tense game in the WS. Realize what you've done and let Davy be angry. You aren't going to correct the call, but own that its your discretion and open to interpretation and the gravity of what you did. Davy wasn't arguing balls and strikes, he was angry over a clearly unnecessary if correct call.
Technically correct, but should never have been called. I'm just glad it didn't factor in the game.
Oh, and the fix is: its interference if the runner interferes with a catchable ball. That wasn't a catchable ball. End of story.
As Bx says above Harper, the technical truth is not what you're talking about though, because it's a subjective call. It would be just as easy for the plate umpire to determine that Turner's path did not interfere with the catcher's ability to make an accurate throw, that he was not hit with the ball or the glove until he was taking the last step in fair territory as would be a natural movement from the running lane in order to be safe. I don't think that's an unreasonable interpretation at all and appears to be common. The language "In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of ) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of ) the foul line, and in the umpire's judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base" would be the case only if he was hit with the ball a step earlier, because "the batter-runner is permitted to exit the three foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base". So unless you judge that he caused the bad throw, or that contact happened before his last step, he's allowed to be where he was when the bad throw got to the mitt that would probably have tagged him as he was striding to 1st. I think this is why you pretty much only see this called when the ball hits the runner, not when the runner hits the mitt.
I think multiple people on this board have accurately pointed out that was an awful call last night. I think it may be the worst call I've ever seen. I agree with Scott VanPelt last night on ESPN - MLB and Joe Torre should send Rendon a fruit basket to thank him for that home run. If the Nats end up losing that game last night, then that call ends up in infamy. Right up there the with the Armando Galarraga-Jim Joyce near perfect game debacle. The umpires only made it worse by being confrontational with Davey Martinez and then throwing him out of the game. They should have just walked away. The umpiring has been awful in the World Series. Sorry to be a conspiracy theory guy (which usually I am not) but it sure feels like the umpires want Houston to win. The awful called third strike to Robles (the pitch to Zim was a ball as well). Last night's call was just awful.
Harper, the problem with your car analogy (which is great otherwise) is this: the "accident" happened entirely while both cars were in their proper lanes. Turner may well have by the letter of the law violated the basepath rule. But at the time of the play, he was over the bag. The glove and ball hit him while he was stepping on the middle of the bag. He had every right - by my understanding of the rule - to be there. Whether 20 feet earlier he was in foul territory is basically irrelevant to the play.
Its basically charging a driver involved in an accident with running a stop light two stops before the accident.
The elongated/double bag at first would present an unnecessary inconsistency. What about the presence of baserunners on throws to second, third, or home? The presence of runners navigating the bases is a routine, fundamental consideration of the fielder on every play. Baserunners are not obligated to yield to whatever path the fielder decides to be optimal for a given throw.
The issue last night was a grotesquely poor judgement call, plain and simple. No rule changes are needed. This ump should be made aware of his mistake and his standing/ rating should be reduced appropriately to reduce the chance for ridiculous mistakes in the future.
I'd like someone to ask Torre where Turner was supposed to physically be in his last 3 steps. Was that asked? A diagram would be good too. The guy was literally straight at the middle of the bag for the last 5 feet plus? There is no runner ever that isnt in that spot barring something odd. This has nothing to do with what side of the foul line he was on for the first 70 feet. Nada.(Btw Harper, we former Orioles fans would have appreciated some very normal applications of the also rarely seen fan interference rules a few decades back).
This whole thing falls into the comically bad category for umpiring. There is just zero room to call that or see it anyway other than what it was. Shitty throw, play on.
I personally loved Davey going ballistic. I wish Fox hadn't buried this a full minute after they came back from commercial break. The discussion and showing of it was so...vanilla? What we were seeing what highly interesting, dramatic and warranted. The Buck and Smoltz approach to the moment didnt reflect that.
Anyway, fantastic game. Never gone from so bitter to so euphoric in such a short timespan that I can recall for a big sporting event. Rendon and Stras forever. And Soto is a freaking National Treasure.
I imagine this gets brought up in the rules committee in the off season and we may get the change or revision or "further instruction"...that and watching these games in Houston, I have officially jumped on the bandwagon: Bring the DH to the NL
Seeing stories about this series being one of the least watched. That's really too bad - hopefully tonight lots of people tune in and it's a good game. Also, I'm mentally prepared for a lot of stuff tonight but probably can't imagine half the potential craziness (although a long one with double digit pitching changes seems unavoidable) - just better not end like G3 with Osuna getting a save. Want to drive a stake into that potential narrative possibly more than I want the win.
I would go so far as to say that I wonder if the umpire Holbrook had it out for the Nats. I think the reality of it is that he saw Guriel's glove come off and that had to be interference in his mind (from 90 feet away). I guess that means it was much less a problem of animosity toward the Nats and more just a plain dumb call.
Harper, further to what JWLumley said: In Joe Torre's comments, there was no mention of Turner's running down the line in fair territory. The issue for Torre was that he believed Turner interfered with the play at 1st base. Which raises another question: What was Turner supposed to do to avoid "interfering" with the throw and catch?
Remember how much people, rightfully, have criticized runners, including Turner earlier in the World Series, for sliding into 1st base, because of the fact that except in the case of a perfect slide, the runner arrives later than if he runs through the base. Well, based on Joe Torre's interpretation of the rule, unless a runner slides into 1st base, a runner could always be subject to be out on an "interference call" if the first baseman swings his glove into the runner as the the first baseman catches the ball at first. That's crazy.
By the way, the "perfect slide" which would theoretically be faster than running through first base isn't really a "slide" but more of a "controlled fall" since it involves not actually sliding on the dirt (which causes friction which would slow down the runner):
https://deadspin.com/yes-sliding-into-first-can-be-faster-no-you-still-sh-1652854913
As the article says, a runner still shouldn't slide into first base, because no one slides the way you would need to in order for sliding to be faster than running through the base.
@SuburbanSteve GOD NO, HITTING IS PART OF BASEBALL, PITCHERS SHOULD HIT
as for the interference, there is no way the throw was impeded. I'm sorry, there just wasn't. It was a bad throw and a bad attempt at a catch by Gurriel, plain and simple. Had the ball hit Turner a step or two earlier, sure I can see making that call. But he was literally airborne trying to touch the base when contacting Gurriel's glove. That's not interference, he has EVERY right to that spot.
But it'll just be a footnote for the future. Thank god for Strasburg. We keep talking about the need to "PAY THE MAN" for Rendon, but Stras I'd argue is a more important contract to get done. He's pitching better than ever and given HOW he's pitching, he's looking more like a Verlander that changes their approach as they lose velo which means we could see 5 or more years of this from Stras. Rendon, on the other hand, is going to be moving to 1st in a few years and bats tend to more sharply decline. I want to keep Rendon, don't get me wrong, but I'd be worried about another Zimmerman situation. Stras, as long as his arm holds up, is a better bet to stay good
BxJaycobb:
I'm a lawyer too and your idea of a "double bag" at 1st reminds me of an idea I've had for a while that I think would make the running game more attractive as a strategy in baseball and would lead to fewer collisions between runners and defenders on the basepaths.
Why not increase the size of the bases, including home plate, and define an inner zone that the defender must be in contact with for an out and an outer zone that the runner must be in contact with to be safe?
One of the problems with the existing base bags is that on plays at the bag or plate, the runner and defender have to occupy virtually the same point in space on the bag or plate. One of the reasons that blocking the bag or plate has been such an effective strategy for so many decades in baseball, is that the relatively small size of the bag or plate makes it possible for the defender to block the relatively small bag or plate.
Furthermore, with video replay, the problem of the small bags and plate for the runner have been made worse, because in sliding into 2nd or 3rd base, it is really hard for a runner to stay in contact with the bag at all times. For example, video replay regularly shows runners' feet bouncing off the bag for a millisecond, a situation which, historically, was not caught by umpires, but now can be grounds for calling the runner out if the defender keeps to the tag on the runner. This problem is so well known, that you can regularly see defenders keep the tag on the runner for an extended time now, when this was seldom done 20 years ago or more.
So, if people want to see more of the running game and "small ball" in baseball, I think they need to provide larger bags and a part of the bag that belongs to the runner and not the defender, as would be the case with your proposed "double bag" at first.
What doesn't come out in this very interesting discussion if the Trea Turner Incident is the influence of the Baseball Unwritten Code on the event.
It is clear that the rule is bad and that, even if the call had narrow technical merit, it should never have been made. But once the call had been made, the Unwritten Code took over. When it comes to judgement calls, thou shalt not openly call into question another umpire's mistake.
The plate umpire made a bad judgement call but the rest of the crew (and the entire MLB) backed him up with the Code. We've all seen poor judgement interpretation of inexact regulations: the infield fly rule, home plate collisions, etc. The Code says "thy will of the plate umpire (or the one who called it) be done". No matter how wrong the interpretation is. It does make for great arguments, and I love Martinez for having Turner's back.
Now. About tonight's game... Let's go 1 - 0!
Let's stop talking crazy about adopting the DH btw.
Love Bill Lee's story about his last at bat in the American League:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1Bmr8hoCkg
@Waving Red You talk about inconsistency as if any asymmetry would ruin something about base running by having 1B be a double bag but not the others or something. But there is already an enormous asymmetry by rule: first base is the only base you are allowed to overrun. Correct? Is that not also an “inconsistency”? This is just something to accommodate that inconsistency, because 1B is simply different by definition from the other bags. There already are inconsistent rules re base paths for the other bags DUE TO this fundamental differences. Thus the annoying rule. To act like this ruins the symmetry/consistency of the 3 bases is silly. There is no consistency as it stands.
It's hard to know exactly why Holbrook made the call, but the most generous interpretation would be that it was an instinctive thing, where he sees it and thinks "oh, the glove and the ball hit the runner, so he must have interfered." In other words, there was no reasoning at all, just a snap decision, where he saw something, so he raised his hand. But the thing is, that's not what happened! If you watch the replay, you see that Holbrook doesn't raise his hand until after Turner is standing at second base and the play is over! Which is so much worse. He had the time to consider the impact of his being out of the baseline at the beginning of the play. He could have also asked the first base umpire if the contact was interference or not from his perspective. He didn't have to make a snap decision, and he didn't--he thought about it, and then, upon reflection, decided to make a call that radically changed the situation and had the effect of screwing over the Nats. So you can't blame some people for thinking the fix was in, or Davey for going ape$hit. If he'd raised his hand instantly it would have still been a terrible call, but you could at least understand how it happened. It would have been a bad "judgment" call. This was something worse than bad judgment.
But who cares. It's Game 7. Max. Does it get any better than this?
(Mostly) objective FanGraphs has the best article title for this: 'A Dumb Rule Almost Ruined the World Series'
https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-dumb-rule-almost-ruined-the-world-series/
Hinch (on MLB's High Heat) says he would NOT have argued had Turner been called safe.
I believe Little League utilizes a double bag at first base. I recall running through an orange base and it's primary function was to prevent collisions and promote safety. Maybe Little League has it more together than MLB does, and that's pretty funny.
The Fangraphs article is quite damning.
I will say that if Holbrook really was trying to job the Nats, he would have had a more one-sided strike zone last night which wasn't the case. He called a terrible, terrible strike zone for both teams. Still, given what another umpire tweeted recently, it's pretty easy to start thinking about conspiracy theories since this all happened after Game 5.
We need much better umpires for the World Series. Only the best should get this assignment and the strike zones have been atrocious. Porter was at least consistent, if tight, for game 1, but after that they've been truly terrible. I hate complaining about the umps but this has not been World Series caliber work by the umps. The game deserves better. Use the robots to choose the very best umps at very least.
@cass Yes, MLB needs better umpires, but they won't get them so long as the Umpire's Union has their way. I'm only 40 and my eyes aren't nearly what they once were, I can't imagine what my eyes will be like at 50 or 60 and yet here we still have umpires who are in that age range. Baseball needs more young umpires. I mean, recruit guys who didn't make in the minor leagues. Guys that already know the game and have the physical ability to do the job.
All the good umpires seem to die fairly young. (Now there's a conspiracy worth examining.)
As a fellow lawyer, I'm just so here for the lawyers making common law arguments about baseball rules. The amount of rule discretion in baseball is one of the things that makes it awesome. That said, I'm also all for trying robot umps on balls and strikes.
That said, reading the umps' faces after the call, I think they all realized what a terrible call it was, but by then it was too late to fix it. I also felt like Strasburg got a couple of questionable, important strike calls in his favor in the 8th inning just after it happened. Felt a little like make-up calls to me, and given Rendon's effective mooting of the issue* by creating some separation in the score, those strikes were arguably as valuable as the extra run the umps owed to the Nats.
Anyway, GAME SEVEN!!! Hopefully neck spasm is the new broken nose.
Sorry, the calls I thought were make up calls were in the bottom of the seventh inning, not the eighth inning. Again, not that it really matters, but it makes me feel better to believe they were make-up calls.
Oh, boy. Didn't realize how many lawyers comment on this site.
Baseball and lawyers can make strange bedfellows. Visit Curt Flood's grave and intone "stare decisis" and feel for yourself the earth shudder beneath your feet.
I haven't seen anyone try to argue that they were not makeup calls. Also interesting that you must incorporate all of these late game bad calls in favor of the Nats in order to get a balanced impact from bad calls.
Let's go 1-0 today.
I'm betting on 3-5 innings from Max, 1 from Corbin, 2 from Sanchez, and the rest Doolittle and Hudson.
......but I'm hoping for 7 from MAX and 12 or so K's!
Well, yes, a rectangular base at first would be an inconsistency. And yes I think it would be silly. Requiring runners to stay in foul ground would disproportionately aid fielders for plays at first only, since the runner would never be in fair territory when approaching the base. The unique run-through at first has nothing to do with the runner's path/angle. The path is still a straight line.
Why is making it easier to throw out runners a desirable change? Trying to understand the need. Larger bases also make the length of throws to the base shorter.
VICTORY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! After forty years of following this team, at last, it's a win!!!!!!!
Wow, still can't believe it! I love all of you!
Post a Comment