|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 370 OF 914 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Apr-21-12 | | King Death: Philip Humber's going for perfection today, he just went 3-0 on the leadoff hitter in the 9th but struck him out. |
|
| Apr-21-12 | | King Death: It's over, 9 Ks 96 pitches and the kid did it. |
|
| Apr-21-12 | | Jim Bartle: I was watching NY-Boston, Sox up 9-0, and they switched to Seattle for the perfecto. (How far outside was that last pitch, and did the guy really swing at it?) Back to Boston just in time for Teixeira to hit a 3-run homer to make it 9-8. |
|
Apr-21-12
 | | Phony Benoni: Let me tell you. If that guy had twitched, they were calling it a swing. That would have been a heck of a way to lose a perfect game. Get twenty-seven outs, but have the last batter reach on a passed-ball strike-out. And you know, the right fielder almost lost that second out in the sun; he sure caught it funny. I was waiting anxiously to see if the first question in the postgame interview was going to be "How do you feel?" Naw. These guys are real pros. They asked, "Can you describe your emotions?" Much, much better. Longer words, at least. |
|
| Apr-21-12 | | Jim Bartle: I gotta say, seeing Bobby Valentine in the Red Sox dugout as manager just doesn't look right. I can't say why, the Sox and Valentine just don't go together. |
|
Apr-21-12
 | | WannaBe: Just got done with <Nako>, and caught the box score for those 2 games, what a football game between NY-BOS!! |
|
Apr-21-12
| | WannaBe: That scream you heard, is the Boston bullpen sending out S.O.S. |
|
| Apr-21-12 | | Jim Bartle: I like the Yankees scoring inning by inning:
0 0 0 0 0 1 7 7 0 |
|
Apr-21-12
| | Phony Benoni: I'm sure something is going to check if a team has ever had back-to-back seven-run innings before. Don't ask me to do it; I'm too busy sacrficing my fingernails to the Baseball Gods. Verlander has come out after six innings with only a two-run lead against the Rangers. |
|
| Apr-21-12 | | Jim Bartle: OK, Detroit won a game with only three hits. |
|
Apr-21-12
| | Phony Benoni: The hitting has not been there, except for the opening series with Boston. Which, the way things are shaping up, might not be a coincidence. |
|
| Apr-22-12 | | benjinathan: <Jim Bartle> I wonder if the bihggest advantage Boggs got was the fact that you are going to see a far higher % of right handed pictures in Fenway rather than any advantage from the park itself. See also Yaz and Williams and Fred Lynn (Ortiz?). The Sox load up on right handed power hitters to take advantage of the monster and the beneficiries of that are the left handed bats in their line up. Maybe? |
|
| Apr-22-12 | | Jim Bartle: Definitely. Over the years many lefthanded hitters have hit very well there, and facing fewer lefties must be part of it. |
|
| Apr-22-12 | | Jim Bartle: OK, PB, a rules question, as my memory from umpiring times is failing me, plus stealing home wasn't permitted in most leagues where I umped. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0077531/
The famous Jackie Robinson steal of home. First, I think today he clearly would have been called out, as it seems umps watch whether the ball arrived in time now more than whether the tag was applied in time. (In any case, he looked out, but the home ump doesn't have a good view.) But my question is this: Berra clearly jumps forward before the pitch arrives. What if the batter had swung? What's the rule? I think the catcher still has to give the batter room to swing, so Berra should have been penalized in some way. Maybe send the batter to first? |
|
Apr-22-12
| | Phony Benoni: <JB> I couldn't get there from your link; here's another one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pFn... First, here is the definition of defensive interference in rule 2.00b: <"Defensive interference is an act by a fielder that hinders or prevents a batter from hitting a pitch."> That clearly happened. Berra stepped up in the catcher's box and reached across the plate to catch the ball while the batter was still in a hitting position. There is no way the batter could have taken a normal swing without hitting Berra. The penalty is spelled out in 7.04:
<"Each runner, other than the batter, may without liability to be put out, advance one base when—...(d) While he is attempting to steal a base, the batter is interfered with by the catcher or any other fielder."> There is also an additional penalty mentioned in rule 7.07: <"If, with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal, the catcher or any other fielder steps on, or in front of home base without possession of the ball, or touches the batter or his bat, the pitcher shall be charged with a balk, the batter shall be awarded first base on the interference and the ball is dead."> However, it could be argued that this doesn't apply here. Berra never touches the batter or the bat, nor does he step on or across home plate without the ball. He reaches across the plate, but is that "touching" it? Therefore, by current rules I think Robinson would have been awarded home. The situation in 1956 may have been different. There is one other interesting possibility in rule 6.08: <"The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when—....(c) The catcher or any fielder interferes with him. If a play follows the interference, the manager of the offense may advise the plate umpire that he elects to decline the
interference penalty and accept the play....
Rule 6.08(c) Comment: If catcher’s interference is called with a play in progress the umpire will allow the play to continue because the manager may elect to take the play...."> Either way, it looks like Robinson gets home plate, either on interference or as the result of the play. (And I thought he was safe anyway.) |
|
| Apr-22-12 | | Jim Bartle: He was out!!!
But you're right, I'd bet that had Robinson been called out, the Dodgers would have claimed Berra interfered, and maybe the ump would have called that anyway. It seems to me Kellert erred by stepping back as the play occurs. He should have stood his ground as a batter. <...with a runner on third base and trying to score by means of a squeeze play or a steal,> That doesn't seem consistent with most of the rules of baseball. It calls on the umpires to determine a baserunner's intent (trying to steal home or running on a squeeze) which is entirely the opinion of the umpire. There's no way to show the runner was coming formally. Or can you find me a rule that acknowledges a different ruling whether a runner on first was trying to steal second or was staying at first? I don't think there is any rule which does that. (A runner trying to steal second certainly isn't allowed to score on a ground rule double.) Interesting stuff in any case. |
|
| Apr-22-12 | | Jim Bartle: The video you posted, is clearly wrong in at least one aspect of the re-creation. No way did Berra put his foot down in front of home to block the plate. He just got his glove down in front, or right on the plate, as Robinson slid in. Here's a longer youtube which shows the steal clearly. It also gives a clear hint how the Dodgers won the Series that year. They were the only team which batted; the Yankees never came up!! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3Jk... |
|
Apr-22-12
| | Phony Benoni: <JB> I think that the rules are making a distinction between among different ways of a runner advancing from third to home. For instance, on a sacrifice fly the catcher need not be in posssession of the ball to stand wherever he likes. I think the basis of the distinction lies in the position of the batter. On a steal or squeeze, he will be either standing at the plate or crossing it on his way to first. If the catcher immediately jumps on top of the plate to field the bunt or catch the ball, he can't help but interfere with the batter. (Ed Armbrister!) On other plays the batter will have cleared the area long before the catcher needs to get into position. |
|
| Apr-22-12 | | Jim Bartle: Yes, but technically, in the rules, how is a runner running toward home plate different from a runner taking a lead off third, or even just standing on third? What if a guy charges halfway down the line, then goes back, maybe if a team has a huge shift on against a left-handed hitter like Teixeira? I've been reading quite a bit of old baseball stuff, and several times (including Bill James, believe it or not), I've read that Buckner's error cost the Sox the Series, that they would have won if Buckner had made the play. That simply is not true. The game had already been tied on Stanley's wild pitch earlier in the at-bat. Buckner just allowed the Mets to win right then rather than move on to the 11th. I had a friend who was a fanatical Red Sox fan, extremely well-informed about baseball (later mayor of Palo Alto and a state legislator) who was just incensed for days about the Armbrister call. What a great World Series that was, just great. In the 10th or 11th of game 6 Fisk says that when Rose came up to bat he told him (Fisk) it was the greatest game he'd ever playe in. And that was after his team had blown a three-run lead in the eighth. |
|
Apr-22-12
 | | OhioChessFan: It was defensive interference per 7.04. And Robinson was out. I think an appeal for interference after an out call would have been upheld. That doesn't sound as exciting as "stole home" though. |
|
| Apr-22-12 | | Jim Bartle: We get to see Yogi Berra jumping around, though. That's pretty funny. |
|
| Apr-23-12 | | Jim Bartle: Today is the 50th anniversary of the Mets' first win (after nine straight losses): http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/... The Mets had no errors, but Pittsburgh had three. And only one was by Dick Stuart. |
|
Apr-23-12
| | WannaBe: Quick poll, amonst us, baseball fans here:
Which team have surprised you, so far, as far as win-loss record, Angels, SF Giants, or Phillies.
I am going with Angels. |
|
Apr-23-12
| | Phony Benoni: It's April. Nothing is surprising in April. |
|
| Apr-24-12 | | Jim Bartle: Washington Nationals, 12-4.
LA Dodgers, 13-4. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 370 OF 914 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
