MLB: Post-Season 2019

[Colibri]

And we have a game 7. The first time in history a visiting team has won the first six games of a series.

Let’s make it one more.

[Larry_Borgia]

@madmonk28

Zimmerman is a class guy, he played his best years when the Nats sucked. He never moaned, he never bitched, he just played his guts out.

A like button would not do this post justice. Absolutely I am pulling for the Nats to win a world series before Zim retires.

[asterion]

After what feels like at least two games (and possibly more) of the conversation being about the umpiring and other things not on the field, I’m getting rather tired of it. Especially the umpiring. An inconsistent strike zone is annoying to watch, but tonight’s delay was just atrocious.

[asahi]

I want Houston to win mainly because Washingtonians are egomaniacal assholes who don’t understand the rest of the country, but that aside, I like Zimm. And I like the Nats players, who aren’t from Washington.

[Bullitt]

Finally on MLB Tonight do we get an explanation for the Trea Turner out call in the 7th. FOX never gave it to us.

The ump got the call right.

Frustrating to have to wait so long.

Let’s Go Nationals!

[RTFirefly]

Game (7) on!!

Even through the first four innings, last night just felt different from the games at Nats Park. The Nats were behind by a run, but thanks to Strasburg, they didn’t let the game get away.

Once again, the Nats score their key runs (Eaton’s and Soto’s HRs) after I turn off the TV downstairs, and before I grab my phone once I’m in bed.

Yeah, it’s time for MLB to turn the balls-and-strikes calls over to the software.

And the big non-strike-zone call: if the ump got the Trea Turner call right, I still want to see an answer to Turner’s question: what was he supposed to do? He ran straight up the line, and first base is only so big. Thank goodness the game didn’t turn on that call.

[Jasmine]

So, according to what was posted the other day, we now have a new record of 6 straight road victories to start the World Series, right? So, do the Nationals set a record tonight that can never be broken, or can Houston salvage a lone win for the home team in this series?

[Jasmine]

**The Trea Turner Controversy **

There’s more detail than just this quote.

First, let's define the running lane: A three-foot-wide lane occupying the last half of the distance to first base. The lines marking the running lane are part of the running lane. That's important.
When is a runner out of the running lane? The batter-runner is out of the running lane when, during the last half of the distance to first base, one of the runner's feet (or both, for that matter) is entirely outside the running lane at the time that the interference potentially (but again, not necessarily) occurs.
A throw must be made. If the catcher, for example, comes up with a bunted ball and sets up to throw to first, but then stops and doesn't throw because the runner (in his view) is in the way, you cannot have interference. The fielder must make an attempt to throw to first.
The throw must be a catchable throw. Using the same example, if the catcher comes up with a bunted ball and then throws wild to first base because (in his view) the runner was in the way, you cannot have interference. The throw must be one that the first baseman has a reasonable chance (with ordinary effort) to catch.
Note carefully the language of the rule: "… interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base." So umpire judgment rests on what's happening with the fielder at first base, not the fielder who is making the throw. This is a critical point and is often misunderstood. Points #3 and #4 rest on this point: That if there is interference, the interference is on the fielder receiving the ball at first base, not on the fielder throwing the ball from the vicinity of home plate. You will sometimes get managers arguing running lane interference mistakenly arguing that the fielder who threw the ball was upset by the runner's position outside the running lane. He's entirely mistaken with that line of argument.
There are two exceptions. There are two exceptions (wrinkles, really) in Rule 5.09(a)(11). First, the runner is permitted to leave the running lane to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball. We know this already from what we've learned thus far about interference – that the fielder has the right of way in fielding a batted ball. Second, noticing that first base itself (the bag) is outside the running lane, the runner is permitted by rule to step out of the running lane for the purpose of touching first base.

So all of this rather begs the question: when do you have interference on a running lane violation? Well, the most common scenario is when you have the runner outside the running lane and the fielder’s throw to first base is on line, but the throw hits the runner in the back (or head) causing the ball to drop uncaught. This is not the only scenario, of course, but it’s probably the most common one. Kill the ball, call the batter-runner out for interference, and return other runners (if any) to their time-of-pitch base.

[Hellestal]

It’d be easier for fans to understand the running lane if there were a safety bag for first base.

[madmonk28]

@Larry_Borgia

A like button would not do this post justice. Absolutely I am pulling for the Nats to win a world series before Zim retires.

A few years back, I was on the road listening to the radio broadcast of a Nats/Braves game, it was the Braves’ broadcast. When Zimmerman came up, one of the Braves radio announcers told a story about eating in a bar alone on the road, when Zim came up and invited him to join his party for dinner. They ended up talking baseball all night. The Braves announcer had nothing but good things to say about Zim.

[madmonk28]

@asahi

I want Houston to win mainly because Washingtonians are egomaniacal assholes who don’t understand the rest of the country, but that aside, I like Zimm. And I like the Nats players, who aren’t from Washington.

Oh, we understand the rest of the country, it’s why we don’t like you.

[mhendo]

@asahi

1. Soto is another Pujols - and maybe better. The real deal.

Soto is fantastic, and I look forward to watching him for many years to come. If he keeps going like this, and improves the way that many good players do, he’s got a chance to be around for 20 years and end up a Hall of Fame player.

But let’s be a little cautious about the comparisons while he’s only 21 years old.

Here’s the numbers from Soto’s career to date, after two seasons:

BA: .287
OBP: .403
SLG: .517
OPS+: 140
WAR: 7.6

And here’s the first two years of Pujols’ career:

BA: .321
OBP: .399
SLG: .586
OPS+: 154
WAR: 12.1

And Pujols only got better. When Soto has played 10 years, with a line of .331/.426/.624, an OPS+ of 172, and a WAR of 81.4, then we can talk. But a lot can happen over the course of a career, and right now I’m just happy to enjoy watching him play.

[Bullitt]

@RTFirefly

And the big non-strike-zone call: if the ump got the Trea Turner call right, I still want to see an answer to Turner’s question: what was he supposed to do? He ran straight up the line, and first base is only so big. Thank goodness the game didn’t turn on that call.

He was supposed to veer to his right and into the running lane in foul territory, and then as he approached the bag which is in fair territory, he is permitted to veer towards it.

[Quercus]

@Bullitt

Finally on MLB Tonight do we get an explanation for the Trea Turner out call in the 7th. FOX never gave it to us.

The ump got the call right.

I think I disagree.

The rule says the batter is out if, because they were out of the running lane, they interfere with the fielder catching the ball. The rule also specifically says that the batter is allowed to leave the running lane to touch the base (duh, since the base is not in the running lane).

Turner ran straight to first, which from the (right-handed) batter’s box put him generally on the fair side of the foul line; his foot touched the grass a couple times. The throw was from well into fair territory, so it didn’t come close to Turner’s path at all. The first baseman had a perfectly good look at the ball, but the throw ended up wide, and he couldn’t reach past Turner who arrived at the same time as the ball. The ball hit Turner in the back of his right leg just after his foot hit first base.
Now, I was cheering for the Nats, but I still think the correct ruling is that the only potential interference happened when Turner was literally touching first base, a place where he had every right to be by rule and therefore could not commit interference. The fact that he was out of the running lane earlier had nothing to do with the potential interference and therefore is immaterial. Play should stand.

[RickJay]

@Hellestal

It’d be easier for fans to understand the running lane if there were a safety bag for first base.

The implementation of a safety bag just makes too much sense for MLB to do. It’s safer, would allow for the rule to be WAY better written - I can cite rules to say that call was right and other rules to say it was wrong - and is fairer to everyone. So they won’t do it.

[Bullitt]

@Quercus

I think I disagree.

The rule says the batter is out if, because they were out of the running lane, they interfere with the fielder catching the ball. The rule also specifically says that the batter is allowed to leave the running lane to touch the base (duh, since the base is not in the running lane).

Turner ran straight to first, which from the (right-handed) batter’s box put him generally on the fair side of the foul line; his foot touched the grass a couple times. The throw was from well into fair territory, so it didn’t come close to Turner’s path at all. The first baseman had a perfectly good look at the ball, but the throw ended up wide, and he couldn’t reach past Turner who arrived at the same time as the ball. The ball hit Turner in the back of his right leg just after his foot hit first base.
Now, I was cheering for the Nats, but I still think the correct ruling is that the only potential interference happened when Turner was literally touching first base, a place where he had every right to be by rule and therefore could not commit interference. The fact that he was out of the running lane earlier had nothing to do with the potential interference and therefore is immaterial. Play should stand.

I follow you, and I too am cheering for the Nats (gotta LOVE the team that eliminated Dem Bums, Da Dodgers!), but the rule is that the runner has to run in the lane. It says nothing about the runner having to run in a straight line (which he did but it doesn’t matter).

On FOX the good, relevant information that we did get was from John Smoltz. He said that what fielders are trained to do in those cases is to throw at the runner, to force an interference, because the 1st baseman cannot then make the catch. Other than that, we got no good, relevant information from FOX. And certainly nothing good from Buck.

It wasn’t until much later that I got the info from MLB Tonight and Harold Reynolds that I posted above in post #505.

[Railer13]

Did I understand correctly that the interference call is not reviewable via replay? If so, why they did spend a long time looking at the replay?

[RickJay]

@Quercus

Now, I was cheering for the Nats, but I still think the correct ruling is that the only potential interference happened when Turner was literally touching first base, a place where he had every right to be by rule and therefore could not commit interference. The fact that he was out of the running lane earlier had nothing to do with the potential interference and therefore is immaterial. Play should stand.

For the sake of clarity, that is Rule 6.09a11 (explanatory note.) interference cannot be called on a runner if they are legally occupying a base, unless the interference is deliberate. If Turner got to first before the interference, he should not be called out.

Suppose he did not qute reach the base though; it’s still not clear he is out. A runner is not out for running inside the baseline; he is out for running inside the baseline and interfering. But Rule 5.09 states:

“The batter-runner is permitted to exit the threefoot 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 does it matter that Turner didn’t immediately re-enter far territory if that’s where he would have been anyway? The rule isn’t super clear; it’s umpire judgement, and the rule against interfering in fair territory says so.

The rules also specifically say umps can make judgments, in the case of ambiguities or things not covered, in the best interest and fairness of the game. The Turner ruling was EGREGIOUSLY unfair. The play was not botched because of Turner breaking a rule - it just wasn’t. Where he was until the moment he got to first, which is where the contact happened, wasn’t relevant to what happened. It was a bad throw, that’s all, and 999 times out of a thousand it’s not called that way, so should not have been called that way last night. And it’s never called that way for the obvious reason that ALL right handed batters run inside the line. Watch tonight’s game if you don’t believe me, 'cause they all do.

These are the same umps who tell you it’s just hunky-dory that they call strike zones that are not what the rule book says is the strike zone as long as they are “consistent.” Well, if consistency’s so important, why was Turner called out?

And anyway, he stepped on first before he was hit, so he’s safe for that reason too.

[cmkeller]

Dale Sams:

Their competence is insignificant compared to the power of their choke.

But Jonathan Papelbon isn’t on the Nats anymore!

[zamboniracer]

what bothered me about the “interference at first” play was Smoltz’s comment that pitchers are now instructed to throw at the runner. Did I hear that right? In ancient times when I played - at much much much lower levels - the person receiving the throw at first was to position himself so as to give a clear throwing lane inside the baseline away from the runner.