MLB: August

[crypto]

@Marley23

I’m not being sensitive, I’m being dismissive of a bad argument. The umpire does not need to prove intent. This is not a legal proceeding. Sometimes umps issue warnings even on HBPs that are not obviously intentional because they are trying to forestall retaliation. They are specifically empowered to deal with situations like these, and O’Nora didn’t do anything. The first pitch of the at bat was a fastball behind Rodriguez’s knees. It wasn’t a pitch that failed to break or whatever, it was a pitch thrown several feet inside and the intent was obvious to anybody with eyeballs. After that Dempster threw two fastballs nowhere close to the plate, and then he finally hit him with a pitch. The umpire could have justifiably stepped in at any stage, but he did nothing until the pitcher had his fourth chance. And of course he then warned the Yankees as well as the Sox. Wasn’t that inappropriate? I mean how could he prove their intent?

No, sorry… You are being too sensitive. And your refusal to admit that you could be wrong or that I have a point is your downfall. How do I know? Because the events played out exactly as they would have if my version is correct.

You have never seen a pitcher get tossed from a game or the benches warned after one errant pitch, unless it was AT HIS HEAD, or there was some pre-game buzz about the pitcher throwing at the batter. And as much as you think you knew what his intent was, you couldn’t PROVE intent Until the fourth pitch. If the fourth pitch was another inside ball, and A-Rod walked, what controversy would there have been? No warning is issued to either side, and the “incident” is forgotten by everyone except arod, the pitcher, the umpires and the Yankee pitcher.

If baseball ran by your logic, you would have to issue a warning to EVERY pitcher who threw a bit too close at a batter. Because your telling us that you KNEW his intent before the fourth pitch was thrown. Which is utter nonsense.

And if you DIDN’T warn every pitcher and both benches after the first close pitch, you would have an argument because everyone would be expecting the warning. You simply can’t assume after the first pitch inside, the pitcher is going to hit the batter during the at bat.

@Marley23

. By whom?

Everybody, including both team managers, both pitchers and even the fans. As an umpire, seeing hundreds of thousands of pitches over your career, you aren’t going to issue a first pitch (that didnt hit the batter) warning unless it was a fastball that went behind his head. Certainly not his feet. You keep saying his knees. It wasn’t that high. I’ll give you calves if you must argue, but it would not have hit his knees.

And what is the difference between a brushback pitch and the pitch at arods ankles? Maybe 6 inches in width. And a good brushback pitch is under his chin (“chin music”). He’ll get out of the way, and it will be called a ball. Brushback pitches have been part of the game forever. A guy like Pedro Martinez lived on the inside half of the plate and hit many batters as a consequence. He wasn’t always throwing at the guy.

You ask If it was fair to warn the Yankees and Sabathia? Well, in this case he had to. Players were coming onto the field. If he didn’t warn Sabathia, by the unwritten rules of baseball, either the first guy up the next inning or the opposing teams best player is going to face an inside pitch. Which may or may not hit him, but Sabathia is supposed to defend his teammate from the mound. Arod may not have been defended, though. It would depend on a lot of factors. My guess would be given the opponent, Sabathia hits someone before the night is over. Even if he didn’t want to, Gerardo would have most likely ordered it.

But I’ve seen many games where the other pitcher doesn’t throw at an opposing batter.

@Marley23

By what standard?.

Any rational standard that has governed the game over the past 100+ years. You keep saying pitch 2 and 3 were no where near the plate. Yes they were. They were closer to the plate than they were to arod. Arod NEVER MOVES! Arod NEVR BACKS AWAY. They were hardly brushback pitches.

@Marley23

I don’t need to prove his intent because I’m not a prosecutor. I also know what his intent was because I can see. Everybody watching the game knew exactly what was going on.

Yeah I know. We aren’t in court. But to make calls on what you THINK another player is doing is tough business. Because intent to injure can be all over the field. What about that hard slide into second? Good luck with that. How about the throw to first that forces the first baseman to tag a player instead of the bag?

You can’t see intent. You can only imagine you saw intent after the fourth pitch. Hindsight doesn’t come into play here. If you think you can see intent, you are in a slippery slope. And certainly, if you can see it on a baseball field, you can see it in real life, too right? Because you can SEE. :rolleyes:

Have you ever played baseball competitively? Ever pitched? I have. I have hit players and been hit. Sometimes balls get away from you. A curveball doesn’t curve, or a slider doesn’t break. Sometimes, when your area tires, a fastball can break inside more than you are expecting. People aren’t perfect. And even if you THINK you knew what his I tent was, that’s just 20/20 hindsight. If you were intellectually honest about this, you would admit that. Bottom line is if that fourth pitch was just like the 2nd and 3rd pitch, he walks and no warnings.

Also, when you think about it, your idea is that the pitcher has pin-point control, right? So why didn’t he plunk him with pitch 2 or 3? Why didn’t he come closer? His first pitch was behind him on a bounce, I believe, so if it hit him, it would have hit him anywhere between the foot and the knee. Hardly a message pitch.

[Marley23]

@Stink Fish Pot

You have never seen a pitcher get tossed from a game or the benches warned after one errant pitch, unless it was AT HIS HEAD, or there was some pre-game buzz about the pitcher throwing at the batter.

I’m not arguing Dempster should have been tossed immediately, I’m saying he should have been warned the first time he threw at him. And I believe it was a day earlier that another Red Sox pitcher was saying Rodriguez shouldn’t be allowed to play.

And as much as you think you knew what his intent was, you couldn’t PROVE intent Until the fourth pitch.

Nobody needs to prove intent. It’s a baseball game, not a court of law. The umpire is not required to submit evidence and does not have to meet a burden of proof, although of course everybody watching the game understood that Dempster was throwing at the batter. That should’ve been enough.

If the fourth pitch was another inside ball, and A-Rod walked, what controversy would there have been?

If the pitcher hadn’t hit the batter on purpose, there would be very little controversy about the pitcher hitting the batter on purpose. You’ve got me there. If he’d just knocked him down with a pitch and there had been no warning (which there should have been), a Red Sox batter probably would’ve been brushed back or hit in retaliation for that first pitch. At that point there would’ve been a warning.

If baseball ran by your logic, you would have to issue a warning to EVERY pitcher who threw a bit too close at a batter. Because your telling us that you KNEW his intent before the fourth pitch was thrown. Which is utter nonsense.

This is a very credulous look at the events because at-bats where the pitcher doesn’t even try to find the plate are not common. The first pitch was about three feet off the plate. It’s really not that hard to tell when a pitcher is throwing at someone, and nobody in the stands had any trouble figuring it out. So yes, I would have told you the same after the first pitch or the other two (which were six inches to a foot inside). I think I am able to interpret obvious things when I am looking right at them. Dempster knocked him down with the first pitch and never threw anything close to a strike. I think it’s bizarre to say the ump was powerless to do anything until he finally hit him.

You simply can’t assume after the first pitch inside, the pitcher is going to hit the batter during the at bat.

It wasn’t one pitch inside. It was a fastball three feet off the plate.

You ask If it was fair to warn the Yankees and Sabathia? Well, in this case he had to.

Yes, he did have to. But it seems to me that all of a sudden you’re OK with the umpire making assumptions about the players’ intent.

You keep saying pitch 2 and 3 were no where near the plate. Yes they were. They were closer to the plate than they were to arod.

No, they weren’t.

Yeah I know. We aren’t in court. But to make calls on what you THINK another player is doing is tough business.

Umpires do it all the time. A warning isn’t a particularly big deal (except in this instance, apparently) unless someone is throwing at a hitter deliberately. But in this case the only way to know if a pitcher is throwing at a hitter is to wait for him to hit the guy, which is absurd.

You can’t see intent.

Well, you and Brian O’Nora can’t. Everybody else saw it just fine.

[crypto]

@Marley23

I’m not arguing Dempster should have been tossed immediately, I’m saying he should have been warned the first time he threw at him. And I believe it was a day earlier that another Red Sox pitcher was saying Rodriguez shouldn’t be allowed to play.

. If Dempster had made a statement about ARod not playing, then you have an argument. I have not heard anything staring he mentioned anything before the game. So, you are back to your nonsensical argument about intent and throwing at him on the first pitch. He’s a major league pitcher. If he wanted to hit Arod, he would have done just what he did on the fourth pitch. Throw it at his torso which is much easier to hit with a fastball. That first pitch, if you are asking me personally if i think he threw it at him, I’d say yes. But I’d also say that the location of the pitch strongly indicates that Dempster was giving Arod a chance to get out of the way. Which he did. But to say that I would have warned him when there were no prior dust ups in this particular game that I’m aware of, I would most certainly have not. You disagree. If you were to warn Dempster, there is nothing the Red Sox could do about it, except argue and protest the game. But as an umpire you would be second guessed by baseball people for a while, because if it wasn’t arod, you probably don’t make the warning, maybe you do, I don’t know what’s in your mind. We clearly don’t agree, but I feel like we’ve hi-jacked this thread enough.

@Marley23

Nobody needs to prove intent. It’s a baseball game, not a court of law. The umpire is not required to submit evidence and does not have to meet a burden of proof, although of course everybody watching the game understood that Dempster was throwing at the batter. That should’ve been enough.

You keep talking about it like I disagree with you. No, you don’t need to prove intent. But you open yourself up to arguments on any and every close pitch, questionable play or whatever because NOTHING can be proven. You can say “I think he was doing this” and warn the pitcher. What happens when the opposing pitcher does the same thing? You decide he didn’t intend to, so you do nothing. How does that work in your world? How does that not show favoritism or a predisposition to make one call but not another depending on who is in the mound or at the plate? You can say over and over that “I don’t have to prove intent” and technically you’d be right. But don’t expect to be invited to umpire an all-star game or playoff series. Your premise does not stand up in the real world. You say “it should have been enough.” By whose standards? Yours? Mine? MLB’s? If the ump in question gets fined, let me know and I’ll reconsider my point. Until then, we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

@Marley23

If the pitcher hadn’t hit the batter on purpose, there would be very little controversy about the pitcher hitting the batter on purpose. You’ve got me there. If he’d just knocked him down with a pitch and there had been no warning (which there should have been), a Red Sox batter probably would’ve been brushed back or hit in retaliation for that first pitch. At that point there would’ve been a warning.

.

Not necessarily. Lets say, for example, Arod is brushed back on ball 4 and takes his base. No warnings have been issued, then, lets say three innings later, Sabathia zips one in on whoever. Drills him in the ribs. Does he warn both benches? Maybe, maybe not. What if there were two guys on? Is the ump going to compute intent by saying Sabathis hit a guy on purpose to load the bases on himself? Or are you not going to warn him because you’d think “CC wouldn’t hit their best player and load the bases and put the tying run on base.” You simply have no idea what would be in CC’s head when he let that pitch go. And what if the pitch was on an 0-2 count instead of a 3-0 count? does that change your mind about intent? The action, according to you can be determined regardless of game situation. You can see intent? so you would or would not give out a warning based on any game situation? … Well, this is all a big fuzzy gray area, and it is usually managed by baseball’s big book of unwritten rules. When umpires try to jump in and control something, when the chance of them being right or wrong is equally likely, its usually best to come down on the side of caution. Most umpires would have agreed with O’Noras handling of the situation.

@Marley23

This is a very credulous look at the events because at-bats where the pitcher doesn’t even try to find the plate are not common. The first pitch was about three feet off the plate. It’s really not that hard to tell when a pitcher is throwing at someone, and nobody in the stands had any trouble figuring it out. So yes, I would have told you the same after the first pitch or the other two (which were six inches to a foot inside). I think I am able to interpret obvious things when I am looking right at them. Dempster knocked him down with the first pitch and never threw anything close to a strike. I think it’s bizarre to say the ump was powerless to do anything until he finally hit him.

.

This is an ignorant statement based on either a lack of knowledge about the game, or a lack of experience. To say that a pitcher is t trying to find the plate is also unprovable. Have you ever seen a relief pitcher come into a game and walk in a run on four straight pitches? I have. That guy could throw four pitches not even close to the strike zone and believe me, he was trying. If he was still alive, you could ask Bob Moose, who in the 1972 playoffs against the Reds, threw a wild pitch with the winning run on third in the bottom of the ninth to lose the game and a chance to go to the World Series. People fail to hit the strike zone all the time. Countless players have been walked in four pitches, many with runners on base.

You say its easy to tell if a pitcher is throwing at a batter. The fans reacted? So what? Fans react on anything, especially a Boston crowd with a Yankee, and a despised Yankee to boot who turned down a chance to play for the Red sox and picked the Uankees over the Red Sox when he signed his big fat contract. But I’ll go along with you and say that it is easy to tell when a pitcher is throwing at a batter. In your mind, is it possible for a pitcher to hit a batter without looking like he threw at him? How? To be hit by a pitch is to be throw at. So its what, then? What is your criteria? If you believe what you are saying, then you should warn both benches before the game even starts. There is no way to avoid it,

@Marley23

It wasn’t one pitch inside. It was a fastball three feet off the plate.

Ultimately, it was a ball. And it didn’t hit him, did it?

@Marley23

Yes, he did have to. But it seems to me that all of a sudden you’re OK with the umpire making assumptions about the players’ intent.

Of course I am in certain situations. This is one of them. Because this follows the “unwritten rules” which I undrrstand and for the most part agree with. Since players already came onto the field, a Sabathia hit batter would clear the benches for sure. As an umpire you can’t have that, he warned both benches, and it was the right thing to do, it does suck for Sabathia, because he has the added pressure of not throwing a ball near a player in order to remain in the game. That puts more stress on most pitchers, because any pitch that by accident " gets away from them" could potentially result in an ejection fine, and/or suspension. that kind of sucks for the other pitcher in the game.

@Marley23

No, they weren’t.

Yes they were. (we could do this all day!).

@Marley23

Umpires do it all the time. A warning isn’t a particularly big deal (except in this instance, apparently) unless someone is throwing at a hitter deliberately. But in this case the only way to know if a pitcher is throwing at a hitter is to wait for him to hit the guy, which is absurd.

A warning can be a big deal depending on when it was given in a game, and what pitchers were impacted. In this particular case, even though I personally agree with you that he was throwing at Arod, I will explain why I wouldn’t issue a warning. One, the location of the pitch. If we are speaking of intent, then you have to concede that the location of the pitch (foot rather than head) shows NO INTENT TO INJURE. Two, he didn’t actually hit him with the pitch, and three, if he actually DID hit Arod with that first pitch, I wouldn’t have given a warning. I would have sent Arod to first base and that would have been that, No one came out of the dugouts after that first pitch. And if the fourth pitch that drilled Arod was the first pitch in the at bat, I still doubt anything would have occurred between the two teams, so no warning issued. If, however, during Arods next at bat, he is hit again, or brushed back with a fast ball, well then of course I give a warning, Arod at that time would be shown to be a target for that pitcher.

@Marley23

Well, you and Brian O’Nora can’t. Everybody else saw it just fine.

If by everybody you mean you, I’d agree with you. :D. I know there are other people out there that sgree with both of our POV, and I’m not changing my mind. I know you well enough to know you aren’t changing yours. So I declare this an official hijack that needs to be shut down, so the discussion of August baseball can continue unabated.

If I am ever arrested for killing someone on a subway because I thought they were going to attack me, I sure hope you are on the jury, so you can explain how you could see the dead guys intent to injure me.

[Marley23]

@Stink Fish Pot

He’s a major league pitcher. If he wanted to hit Arod, he would have done just what he did on the fourth pitch. Throw it at his torso which is much easier to hit with a fastball. That first pitch, if you are asking me personally if i think he threw it at him, I’d say yes.

Alright, I think I can leave this here. To suggest Dempster maybe wasn’t throwing at him on that first pitch is absurd.

[Mister_Rik]

@Stink Fish Pot

You have never seen a pitcher get tossed from a game or the benches warned after one errant pitch, unless it was AT HIS HEAD, or there was some pre-game buzz about the pitcher throwing at the batter. And as much as you think you knew what his intent was, you couldn’t PROVE intent Until the fourth pitch. If the fourth pitch was another inside ball, and A-Rod walked, what controversy would there have been? No warning is issued to either side, and the “incident” is forgotten by everyone except arod, the pitcher, the umpires and the Yankee pitcher.

@Marley23

Nobody needs to prove intent. It’s a baseball game, not a court of law. The umpire is not required to submit evidence and does not have to meet a burden of proof, although of course everybody watching the game understood that Dempster was throwing at the batter. That should’ve been enough.

What I look at, and what I suspect umpires take into consideration, is, “How has this pitcher’s control been up until this point?” If the pitcher has been throwing strikes and exhibiting good control so far, and all of a sudden he can’t find the plate for one particular batter and ends up hitting him, I suspect it was deliberate. If the guy’s been wild for several batters and then hits somebody, I’ll assume it wasn’t intentional.

Also, the game situation. If the pitcher’s team is up by one run and there are two outs, but the bases are loaded, I would assume a hit batter was unintentional.

[Southern_Yankee]

Ichiro Suzuki just got his 2,722 hit in our majors. Add that to his 1,278 in Japan… 4000 freakin’ hits.

[silenus]

Dodgers win, Douche-backs and Giants lose.

All is right with the world again. But CBS and TWC better get their tiff settled, because I’m getting cranky having to follow the games on-line. I need my Vin fix!

[cmkeller]

Royals have come crashing back to Earth. Well, it was nice being excited for a while.

[NAF1138]

Just a note. After today’s game Clayton Kershaw has an ERA of 1.72 which is insane. He also has a bWAR of 7.0, which is good enough to give him the lead in the NL and put him behind only Mike Trout for the highest WAR in the MLB.

[silenus]

One of the things I love about Kershaw is that he isn’t shy about aiding his own cause. Case in point: the first run in yesterday’s game was driven in by…Kershaw. Hell, Opening Day his homerun was the first scoring the game had! That kind of arm and the kid can hit, too.

Total package.

[Truman_Burbank]

Yeah, I don’t recall Koufax ever hitting a lick. Drysdale, now, he could sometimes hit for power.

[silenus]

More importantly, Vin Scully will be returning in 2014 for his 65th year with the Dodgers.

[Asimovian]

Strange night at Dodger Stadium tonight in that it was the shortest game I’ve ever attended in person (particularly odd since I think the Red Sox and Dodgers are considered to be the second and third slowest teams in the majors by length of game, respectively). It was 2 hours and 5 minutes by my count. A total of five hits combined by the two teams, but the one that mattered was Hanley Ramirez’s two-run shot. The Dodgers have back-to-back shutouts, a four-game winning streak, and a 10.5 game lead in the NL West.

As for my other team, the Tribe lost tonight against the lowly Twins. Fortunately, Oakland also lost, so the Indians are still 2.5 back, but they’ve been leapfrogged by Baltimore. Going to be an interesting September in the AL.

[Zakalwe]

Fucking Mets. They took out Heyward and the Braves just aren’t the same.

Couldn’t have been worse timing for me, I’ve got a buddy who’s a Cards fan and we always bet on the season series. I had a three game lead and just needed one out of this four game set to win. Welp, it’s now 3-2 and the Braves are struggling to generate offense (granted the Cards pitching has been good).

Fucking Mets.

[Zakalwe]

Sorry for the double post, but I wanted to add that the ump who ejected Justin Upton is full of shit. He and Upton had words, but when J said “fuck” as he was leaving the box, it was about the weak grounder he’d just hit and not directed at the ump. Also, why would you audibly announce the ejection WHILE THE PLAY IS STILL LIVE!? Clown move, Blue. :mad:

[Truman_Burbank]

@Truman_Burbank

LA is now 72-50. , up by 8.5
A .500 finish from here puts them at 92 wins. AZ would need to finish 29-12. SF won the division with 94 wins last yr.

LA is now 76-54, up by 9.5
A .500 finish would (still) put them at 92 wins. AZ would need to finish 26-7.

[Jas09]

Not a bad start to a critical run of NL Central games for the Cardinals. Reds, Pirates, Reds, Pirates over the next 12. I know there is no such thing as momentum in baseball (especially with Latos going tonight) but it’s good to win one late and ensure that no matter what the Reds will leave STL behind the Cards.

Remember about 4 or 5 threads ago when I mentioned how much I loved that the Reds decided to keep Chapman in the bullpen? So far this season he has pitched a total of 4 innings against the Cards.

[Zakalwe]

Magic Number Updates:
Team (Curr Lead) - Magic # - Games Remaining

Red Sox (1.5) - 31 - 30
Tigers (5.5) - 27 - 31
Rangers (2.5) - 30 - 31
Cardinals (0.5) - 32 - 31
Dodgers (9.5) - 23 - 31
Braves (13) - 20 - 32

And yes, the magic number for the Sox and Cards is higher than games remaining, that simply means that if the team in 2nd wins ALL of their remaining games, then they can’t win the Division outright, no matter how well they do.

Divisional Winning Percentages:
AL East - .534
NL Central - .518
AL Central - .500
NL West - .492
NL East - .478
AL West - .477

[Asimovian]

I found myself a bit annoyed with the decision to leave Greinke in to pitch the ninth against the Cubs last night. Maybe I’m being conservative too soon, but I can’t see the purpose of letting Greinke throw 120 pitches in a game the Dodgers had locked up at that point other than Greinke’s personal pride in trying to get the shutout. I’d rather see him come out with the 90-some-odd pitches he’d thrown through eight, and let someone like Marmol, Wilson or League (people who need the work) finish the game out. Forget that he lost the shutout – I just didn’t see the point.

Was that a poor decision by Mattingly (and I am not a Mattingly hater, for the record), or am I being too critical?

[Jas09]

Personally I think 120 is safe enough. Had Grienke had any particularly long innings? 90-something through 8 seems to imply he hadn’t. I think the latest research seems to point to the number of “max effort” pitches more than the overall number of pitches - although it still seems that any pitches over 135 or so are dangerous.

It’ll be interesting to see what Grienke looks like next time out.