Nationals Baseball: Should have, could have, wasn't

Thursday, June 15, 2023

Should have, could have, wasn't

Nats fans are finally getting it! 

In theory the baseball rule for running to first is pretty clear You need to be in that running lane in the last half of the run to first. You can understand some allowances getting into it and out of it but it's not confusing in any way. 

The thing is it's a rule made for one reason, help a fielder throwing from the general area of the plate be able to hit the first baseman, and such for the most part it's ignored. Most throws don't come from that area and if a runner runs inside the lane it makes no difference. Because running in that lane isn't the absolute straightest path to first most runners don't run there and instead end up on the field side. 

Because of this standard even if the ball is being thrown from the area of the plate the rule is usually ignored UNLESS it is considered that the player interfered with the throw in some way.  So it's an odd situation - the rule exists but only is enforced if something goes wrong and likely that thing wrong is an errant throw since even inside the lane there usually exists a path for the fielder to throw to first. 

Trea Turner's CORRECTLY CALLED OUT in the World Series is a perfect example, extreme as it may be. He did not run inside the lane. He interfered with the throw. He's out.  Is it fair that he interfered with what was a terrible throw? Nope. But is it the rule? Yep. 

So should have the Astros runner been called out? 

YES! 

We're on the same side now.  Well really you've come over to the right side.  There isn't much doubt here on all counts.  Inside the lane? Check!

 

Interferes with the throw?  Check!

  

I'm nothing if not a contrarian so I'll note Meyers path was a fairly typical one to first. Just running where he wants to and coming in toward the base in his last few steps* probably keeping far left at the start because he's actually been taught that.  Make the view tough for the catcher. Make him think you have to work around him. At the end clear out and give the throw a path. 

But the rules are the rules. He was not in the lane and a poor throw here caused an interference situation and he should be out.

I don't know how you clarify the rule though.  No one wants everyone to be forced into the running lane on every play.  God the replays on something like that at the end of the game would be insane. But if you aren't calling this right because it's the end of the game and you want to go home something has to be clarified.  Maybe making the interference call standard if the ball crossing the path the base would make back to the plate or something like that. Give the up less freedom. Does it mean the catchers would be learning to throw over the base rather than to the first baseman? Yeah probably. But hey runners! Move out of the way and this wouldn't be necessary.  

Ed Note - On Twitter someone brought up another possibility. Just deal with it catchers. If the batter's hit makes the throw tough so be it. I'm fine with this too.


 *As opposed to Trea who literally runs as far to the left as he thinks he can for as long as physically possible only heading toward the base with a twist of the body in the reach of his left leg in the final stride. 

7 comments:

Anonymous said...

The fan complaints around the WS weren't about whether Turner violated the text of the rule -- it was always clear that he did. The complaints were that the rule is so rarely enforced that it's a dead letter.

I watch a lot of baseball. Every hitter runs that route and that is simply never called. I think I've only seen it twice and both times against the Nats.

I don't really care whether the rule is enforced or not. Let catchers deal with it, fine. Call folks out, whatever. But it definitely bothers me that in practice the rule only applies to us.

Also, while we're bitching about the umps, it's wild how biased against us the strike zones have been. Ump scorecards has 24 of our games with more than a half run bias based on strike zone calls -- only one of them was in the Nats favor.

And I'm actually starting to doubt the utility of the framing stats because our hitters are getting screwed by calls at an even greater rate than our pitchers. We're told that our catchers are terrible framers, but how can the league's catchers be all the best framers against us? I can't credit skill on the catcher side for a smaller effect than what has to be noise (or ump bias or some other non-catcher specific effect) on the hitter side.

But anyway, we can laugh about it because we won anyway in 2019 and even with all the favorable calls in the world, we're not going to make the playoffs this year. But it is pretty wild.

I just hope we get the robots soon.

Cautiously Pessimistic said...

@Anon, totally agree. I honestly think the rule is stupid, obviously a runner can't intentionally run 3 feet inside the line to interfere with the throw, but the fact that the runner has to be in foul territory is ridiculous given the base is in fair territory. If you want them running in foul territory, put a double base like they do in little league. And if you think you have to leave the rule in place, then actually enforce it. I can only think of one other time in my life where I saw the rule enforced, and the ball literally hit the runner square in the back so it was an easy call.

As for the strike zone, I have to wonder if Davey's hated by the umps or something. The Nats have -24 runs called against them, the next closest is at -11. Literally the distance between last and 29th is the same distance as 29th to 11th. It's gotten ridiculous

billyhacker said...

Love these comments. An alternative motive (to hating Martinez) is just narrative confirmation. "Nats are a bad team, pitch was probably xxxx"

goodman.dl said...

IMO, the long-term answer to this issue is to go ahead and adopt the orange safety base. You reduce risk of collisions with the first baseman, incentivize the runner to stay in the running lane rather than staying in fair territory, and make it easier for the Ump to enforce the baseline rule. (If the league is saying that's a rule they care about)

Though it does probably make bang-bang calls at 1B a little harder for the UMP on the field, the really close ones are getting video reviews nowadays anyhow. Plus, MLB already broke the glass on "we don't make changes like that" when they made the bases larger. And it's not an expensive or hard change. This seems like a reasonable option in the future... if this kind of scenario is something we care about ironing out....

Anonymous said...

@Anon 9:50
You're right to question the utility of framing stats. I'd go further and suggest they're bogus, an extraneous element of the game in search of an ambitious statistician.

If a catcher lunges at a strike and the umpire calls it a ball, that's a missed call by the umpire. If a smooth-wristed catcher converts balls into strikes, that's on the umpire, too. Good framing is a euphemism for bad umpiring.

And about that first base running lane? Anyone who's spent time catching will face that issue more often than you think. The remedy that works most is for the catcher to drill the runner in the back. You'd be surprised how often the call goes against the runner.

John C. said...

I think that it's unfair to say that in the WS Trea was intending to interfere with the throw. He hit a dribbler up the third base line and didn't stop to see how far the ball would roll, he RAN (love watching that guy run). The problem was that he lunged at the ball so his swing took him forward a bit so that, when he ran on a straight line from where his swing ended, he was running in front of the plate and therefore to the left of the foul line. FWIW (not much) he actually did a decent job of moving back to the right; if you watch the replay you'll see that he finishes in the correct position and actually steps on the center of the base with his left foot, not his right foot. It's true that he didn't move to his right to get into the correct lane, but (as the soulless automaton notes) no one does.

The call was technically correct in 2019, completely wrong on Wednesday night. Since the codicil on the rule seems to be that, if the Nats are involved in the play, they get the short end of the stick you'll forgive Nats fans for being a bit salty about the whole thing.

Mike Condray said...

The correct way for the umpires to call it was demonstrated by Close Call sports analysis of both the Trea play and the Meyers play. https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=lSg3J5oLAHk&ab_channel=CloseCallSports

Of note, in the Trea play the home plate umpire stepped to his left and looked straight down the baseline. That made it easy to see where Trea was running and make the call.

In the Meyers play, since there was a home-to-first DP attempt in progress the umpire stayed behind the plate and his attention was focussed on Ruiz's foot to make sure the force out at home was correctly executed. He also knew a runner was thundering down from third so he stayed a few feet back to provide room.

That meant when blue looked up after making the call at home not only was Meyers almost to the bag (though still running where he hits the base with his right foot, not his left as Trea did in 2019). That angle off made it harder to see where exactly Meyers was running and thus he blew the call.

No way we'll ever find out, but I hope MLB's feedback to the home plate umpire in the Meyers play was "You are responsible for both calls--so step to your left behind the RH batters box. That allows you to be out of the way of what happens at the plate yet able to have both home plate and the runner heading to first in your field of vision."

The correct answer really should be a safety bag because players focus is and always will be 'BEAT THE THROW BEAT THE THROW BEAT THE THROW!!!" Since the shortest distance between two points is a straight line they will go from wherever their follow through starts them--like both Trea and Meyers did.

Alternatively, enforce it consistently. Having a rule that is only called occasionally is having a rule players will routinely ignore (because, well, IT IS ONLY CALLED OCCASIONALLY). Producing highly unnecessary frustration/anger in those moments when it IS called ("not a problem yesterday, but SURPRISE! It's a problem today!").