The rules explicitly state that, in the case of a suspended game, players who were not on the roster for the start of the game may play in the resumption, even if they take the roster spot of a player who was already taken out of the game.
Zev Steinhardt
Your hurting my brain. This reminds me of the CF we will see if theres ever a major logjam of tied WC teams and first place teams at the end of a season.
I’m curious if Manfred will postpone scheduled playoff games to make time for the round robin nonsense thats supposed to happen…or just make something up on the spot. Knowing Rob, probably the former.
If you’ll read my full post, you’ll see I’m well aware of that. The question is can Andy Argumentative who has been traded to the other team play for them after his ejection. He could certainly play if he hadn’t been ejected.
Ah, my apologies. I must have missed that.
Zev Steinhardt
Andy Argumentative of the Mammoths has been ejected. Andy Argumentative of the Knights has not.
Can I spoil the discussion with what would really happen?
As soon as Andy turns around to yell at the ump, Max comes flying out of the dugout. While Andy is still at the name calling and dirt kicking stage, Max has interposed himself between Andy and the umpire. When Andy actually kicks the umpire (and for good measure, spits in his face), the umpire pretends it’s Max, and throws him out of the game, while the other coaches drag Andy away. The game continues.
The next day, MLB announces with a straight face that a review of the play has shown that it was actually Andy who was at fault, and fines and suspends Andy instead.
[Tom Hanks]There’s no tying in baseball! There’s no tying in baseball![/TH]
How did that happen in the all-star game? Both teams couldn’t have run out of pitchers at the same time. Surely, if you can’t substitute in a position player and call him a pitcher, then whichever team ran out of pitchers first would be the loser, no?
In the middle of the 11th inning, the managers, Torre and Brenly, met with Commissioner Bud Selig and agreed if the NL didn’t score in the bottom of the 11th, the game would be a tie. Neither had run out of pitchers. There was still a pitcher of record in the game for each team. It was just that they were the last and were relievers who would each have pitched an inning by then.
It happened because no team wants their pitcher to pitch more than one inning in the All-Star Game, so their pitchers won’t overtax their arms and need additional rest when the schedule resumes. By the end of the 10th inning, there were no remaining fresh pitchers left on either side, so Bud Selig decided they’d play one more inning, and if no one scored, everyone could go home.
In defense of Selig, while it might have been fun to watch a late-inning pitching duel between, say, a reserve shortstop and a designated hitter, that would have been nearly as much a travesty in an “All-Star Game” as having it end in a tie.
Ypu can’t really compare the All Star game to a real game because the managers are trying to find playing time for all the players. So they shouldn’t be punished when they run out of players if a game goes to extra innings.
Now I’m wondering: has a player ever played for both teams in a single baseball game (by whatever chain of events may have caused this to occur)?
Not in MLB, despite several opportunities, but it’s happenedin the NBA.
No, although close, Joel Youngblood had a hit for two different teams in the same day (Mets during a day game, Expos during a night game) on August 4, 1982.
On May 30, 1922, two players were traded between the Cubs and Cards in between games of a doubleheader. They switched jerseys and played for their new teams in the night game.
There are a number of mid-game trades that have been conducted (including occasionally the traded player being pulled from the field mid-game), but none of those were with the other team involved in the game being played that I can see.
Very interesting article, thank you!
From that page:
I can understand losing a game after you’ve retired or been traded, because a game can be resumed while you’re still the pitcher of record. But how do you lose a game before you’ve even played for a team?
An near-oddity I discovered. Baseball-reference.com lists 19,267 players in major league history, from David Aardsma to Tony Zych. Aardsma and Zych were both pitchers, and missed being on the same team by only 5 years.
This is how I would think it goes. Someone with actual knowledge may come correct me.
Let’s say I get called up to the Yankees tomorrow and get the win. My MLB debut is 5/29/18.
But on June 18, the Yankees are scheduled to resume play against the Senators for a 5/15/18 game. It’s tied at 3. If I come into that game and allow the winning run, I get to be the pitcher of record in a loss, for a date that I was still assigned to the Scranton/Wilkes-Barre RailRiders.
Okay, I’ll buy that that’s probably what the author of that page meant. But the way it’s phrased, “they had 0–1 records when they officially began their major league careers” is very poorly written. When they began their careers, they had a 0-0 record.
In my experience, the batter not arguing balls and strikes is a custom more honored in the breach. Now, a pitcher or a catcher arguing balls and strikes will get tossed, but I don’t know if I’ve ever seen a batter get tossed just for jawing about an inside strike. The dirt kicking is probably the point where a player would normally get tossed, but I think in the vey unique situation this game is in, it really does make sense that an errant kick would have to hit the umpire before someone gets tossed.
Seems you’re right.
Manny Muniz pitched briefly for the Phillies in 1971. On August 1 they played a game against St. Louis, which was suspended in the top of the 12th, and then there was a protest. The game was resumed on September 7 and completed, with Muniz coming in to re-commence the action in the top of the 12th; he gave up a run, and lost the game. **Muniz had already appeared in his first game on September 3. ** The idea is, I guess, that the game Muniz lost technically was an August 1 game, so even though he did not take part in it until Sept. 7, he “lost” an August 1 game, and then he major league debut was in a different game on September 3.
Frankly, I think that’s just stupid horseshit. No official scorer ever gave him a loss until September 7. When he made his debut on September 3, no one said “wow, he’s 0-1 and this is his debut!” His record on that day was 0-0.