Jump to content


Plus Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Number5

  1. So it is no different in baseball than in life in general.
  2. Think about games in NL parks, where the pitcher bats. You bring a guy in to shut down a rally and he gets the out. Now there's about a 33% chance that he's one of the three batters due up - and he must hit because he hasn't pitched to three batters yet. Or, worse, he's like the 6th batter and you end up having bases loaded and two outs, and you can't pinch hit for him. Double-switches may help with that issue, but cause other problems. Not a fan. I guess we will see what happens.
  3. Seems like traffic is bound to be worse, as we'll be catching the tail end of rush hour. Is the game time really the issue making taking kids to weeknight games problematic, or is it more homework, little league practice, cub scouts, and piano lessons?
  4. How about a 4th option of "Not in favor, but as long as they are doing it I have an open mind to see the results." In other words, I do mind that they are doing it, but since they are doing it I'm willing to accept it if the results are less negative than I anticipate. I can't say that I don't mind, but I don't have a closed-minded hate for it.
  5. I disagree that his giving up less runs per home run goes against what I said. In fact, it would indicate that fewer runners were on base. Giving up 16 home runs at home for a pitcher seems like a lot to me. No? And for nearly a third of them to have been balls that wouldn't be home runs at Petco seems significant to me. No?
  6. I'm all for easy-to-understand rules, but I disagree with you on the balk rules. They need to specifically spell out those things that a pitcher can't do. If you just make it a vague rule about deceptive motions without itemizing them, you would have many, many more arguments.
  7. I'm not sure that all pitchers are affected in the same way by the differences in ballparks. I think the point that the home run particularly hurt Bundy makes sense. He is a pitcher that may well benefit more from the difference between Petco and OPACY than league average. At least the argument seems logical to me.
  8. I doubt if too many guys would be charging the moind against those two.
  9. This was the first real surprise for me. I didn't expect Hanifee to be in our top 20, frankly, after his mediocre year in A ball. K/9 and K/BB rates were alarming to me. You guys know way more than me, and I hope you are right about him.
  10. Thanks for posting these reports. These 6 late-round draft picks are off to great starts. If even one of them pans out, it would be a real good result.
  11. I had Gunnar at #11, with Hall, Lowther, Kremer at 8-10. I think it's great that the Orioles system has improved so much that one of those 4 guys would be out of their top 10. I've been excited about Gunnar since we got him in the draft. I never thought he would still be there at the point we got him. I just felt that Tony and Luke might want to hold off on ranking him in the top 10 with limited pro at bats. No disagreement with the ranking at all, though. This kid could be a player!
  12. LOL Blair High School has a family of geese that takes up residence out by the right-center field fence each year. I've never seen or heard of a play where the geese interfered with a player trying to retrieve a ball, but if it did occur, the umpires would kill the play and place the runners by umpires' judgment.
  13. Yes, provided the fielder has not established himself out of play. Once he steps or lands out of play, any catch he makes thereafter is out of play (either a foul ball or a home run). If he leaps and catches the ball before landing, it is a legal catch and an out. If he remains in play and reaches and catches the ball, the ball remains live, unless it was the third out. With runners on and less than two outs before the play, if he catches and carries the ball out of play, record the out and advance each runner one base. Most fences nowadays are tall enough that this situation is quite rare.
  14. We all have our crosses to bear. I assure you that you find riding in an airplane or the back seat of a car a much more comfortable experience than I do.
  15. This would bring up some interesting rule issues. Some fields that I've played and umpired on have a fence in front of the bench area that then turns 90 degrees beyond the bench , going back to a fence that is behind the bench, and then the in/out of play line follows the back fence all the way down the right and/or left field lines. This creates a corner area similar to what you are talking about beyond the bench area. By rule, on each of these fields, a ball that is overthrown and goes into these areas behind first and third base is in play, but if the fielder retrieving the ball attempts a throw home from that corner that passes over the out-of-play area, that is a dead ball, out of play. He needs to step out of the corner before throwing home. Rare occurrence, but it has happened, and the umpires cover this in the pre-game conference with the coaches. If OPACY were to be configured in the way discussed here, this would create this rule situation not only regarding a thrown ball retrieved in the corner created, but also on batted balls passing over the fence, as you mentioned. Creating a special ground rule allowing a thrown ball to pass over an out-of-play area and remain in-play and live could perhaps pass muster and be allowed by MLB, but I have a hard time envisioning MLB allowing a batted ball that passes over the fence in fair territory to not be ruled a home run. You'd almost have to have a pole similar to a foul pole that would enable the umpires to better be able to rule whether the ball is a home run or in play. Interesting scenario, but I think it is pretty unlikely.
  16. Wow. This is wonderful. Thank you, Mr. and Mrs. Davis. Breath of fresh air compared to so many stories we read about the actions off the field of some professional athletes.
  17. Well, I do try to stay off Rockville Pike at rush hour.
  18. I know the rule is confusing. You are not alone in thinking that a runner is out merely for running out of the runners lane. He isn't. He really isn't. There has to be an interference for an out to be called. From what I've seen, there was no interference on this play. The runner beat the throw and at the time of the issue he was legally touching first base, with every right to be where he is. I look at the picture and see that the runner is on the base with the ball and glove behind him. Hey, I've made this call myself. And there is virtually always an argument from one coach or the other, depending on whether interference was called or not. Few coaches understand the rule. I've had runners running on the infield grass get hit in the back by the throw and the coach will still argue the interference call. I've had throws 10 feet wide of the base go into the outfield and the defensive coach wants interference called. I've even had a coach want a second out on the play if the runner was outside the lane and the throw beat the runner for the out with no issue. The thing is, there must actually be an interference and there had to have been a potential play to get the runner out. From what I've seen, this runner was safe, regardless of the first baseman not catching the ball after the runner touched the base. Had the catch been made, the runner was still safe, as I see it in the picture.
  19. No. At this point the runner absolutely has every right to be where he is. It is obvious that a clear picture isn't enough to convince you that the timing of this play was such that the runner was already legally touching fist base at the time in question, so further words are unnecessary. We will simply never agree.
  20. This is the play. The runner is clearly on the base, as he is legally entitled to be, ahead of the throw. The ball is partially visible between the fielders glove and the runners knee. Whether or not the runner was previously out of the runners lane is irrelevant, as he is in legal position here at the time in question. No interference. That the first baseman then dropped his glove is, of course, of no consequence. The biggest mistake here is Torre's apparent ruling that a judgment call is not reviewable. That is absurd on its face, and a replay will have shown the timing of the play that at the time in question the runner had every right to be where he was.
  21. You seem to have only a vague idea of what the rule is. A runner is NEVER out merely for running out of the runners lane. There must be an interference. There must be a good throw, and the runner is entitled to enter fair territory in order to touch the base. These are basic rules and that you question them makes it quite apparent that you haven't looked up the rule at all. This might help you: https://baseballrulesacademy.com/rule-week-runners-lane/
  • Create New...