Baseball 2019

[steelyman]

That one was worth staying up for. Both teams had quite a season!

 

[garyt]

Or it's indicative that he wilts under the pressure.
Losses are not a good metric to evaluate a pitcher. WHIP is better. Still, Verlander's WHIP in World Series games is terrible.

I'd agree, except he's great in all the other playoff games where the pressure can be just as great.

 

[garyt]

Not crossing the bag he is not. Just a bad throw.

Agreed

 

[RunningBum]

Not crossing the bag he is not. Just a bad throw.

Except he ran the entire way inside the line, almost on the grass. That's why he was called out.

 

[RunningBum]

I had to run out just at the end of the game and did not see the last out or the presentation of the trophy. When I got home, they were awarding the MVP (nice car) to a basically empty stadium. Question, did the Huston fans stick around for the awarding of the World Series trophy? Or, did they just leave when the game ended, which would be totally rude.

You're kidding, right? Rude? They are supposed to hang around and watch, and perhaps cheer, for the opposing team? Nope. I'm sure the Nationals didn't care one bit.

 

[JoeWras]

Every kids' dream is to play in game 7 of the World Series and win again in front of indifferent away team fans.

Oh wait, not really! The dream usually includes a bunch of crazy homers cheering wildly. Fireworks (just like the movie "The Natural") and maybe even Instagram models going wild. That didn't happen, oh well.

Congrats Nats. I had no major dog in this fight except that I'm a National League bigot, the home of REAL baseball, none of this DH crap. Of course, that's muddled by the fact I grew up with the Astros being a NL team... Having a hard time thinking they were moved to the AL.

 

[JoeWras]

Question, did the Huston fans stick around for the awarding of the World Series trophy? Or, did they just leave when the game ended, which would be totally rude.

I couldn't stay up, so I dunno.

I have attended a winner take all game 7 final (National Hockey League), and can say it might have been hard to swallow hanging around when you just saw your heroes vanquished. Luckily, my team won (Carolina Hurricanes, 2006). Since then, we have seen the team lose on home ice for important conference finals. We stuck around for the conference trophy presentation, and gave some light applause. But I can say, I vomited in my mouth. I probably wouldn't stick around again.

 

[steelyman]

Of course, that's muddled by the fact I grew up with the Astros being a NL team... Having a hard time thinking they were moved to the AL.

I’m the same way. But then I also associate Houston with “Oilers”.

 

[Car-Guy]

Of course, that's muddled by the fact I grew up with the Astros being a NL team... Having a hard time thinking they were moved to the AL.

I’m the same way.

, I grew up (well remember) when they were the Colt 45's. Heck I can even remember attending a Houston Buffs game (Houston's minor league team that became the 45's then the Stros.)

 

[Montecfo]

History repeats itself. Once again, defeat is snatched from the jaws of victory.

They had this one won until the 7th inning....

Yes, same thing happened to Dodgers and Brewers

 

[lucky penny]

Except he ran the entire way inside the line, almost on the grass. That's why he was called out.

According to Torre's explanation after the game, he was called out for interference (a non-reviewable judgment call). Running somewhat inside the line is fairly commonplace & rarely called as long as the runner moves to the center & is in the right place when he crosses the bag. When asked if he as a manager would have been unhappy with the call, Torre was evasive -- er, diplomatic.

 

[GrayHare]

Les Nats!

MLB's playoff format is built for teams that get hot at the right time. Every expansion of a playoff structure adds more randomness to the postseason, which in MLB has become just an empty-calorie sweet dessert. Due to its 162-game length, the regular season is a statistically more meaningful measure of the best team. There should be more recognition for the MLB team with the best regular season record.

 

[Montecfo]

Except he ran the entire way inside the line, almost on the grass. That's why he was called out.

Horsehocky.

REMEMBER 1969 world series Mets vs Orioles. Left handed catcher JC Martin bunts and heads straight down the line. Pitcher Richart fields. His throw hit Martin on the leg No interference. Winning run scored on the play. Pics and video are out there on YouTube, Etc.

Different play sure, but the bottom line is you can't cross the first base bag without being in the base path, which is all that Turner was guilty of.

 

[garyt]

Except he ran the entire way inside the line, almost on the grass. That's why he was called out.

Even AJ Hinch said it was a bad call and they have to do something about it in the off season.

 

[RunningBum]

Horsehocky.

REMEMBER 1969 world series Mets vs Orioles. Left handed catcher JC Martin bunts and heads straight down the line. Pitcher Richart fields. His throw hit Martin on the leg No interference. Winning run scored on the play. Pics and video are out there on YouTube, Etc.

Different play sure, but the bottom line is you can't cross the first base bag without being in the base path, which is all that Turner was guilty of.

A bad call 40 years ago doesn't make this the wrong call.

Your bottom line is not what is in question, so stop using that as rationale. It's not when he crossed the base, it's where he was running before then.

When all else fails, try the rules.

https://www.umpirebible.com/index.php/rules-base-running/basepath-running-lane#lane

What about the running lane?

There is a three-foot-wide running lane the last half (the last 45 feet) between home plate and first base. If you run outside this running lane while a play is being made from the vicinity of home plate (on a bunt, for example), you can be called out for interference. I said you "can" be called out for interference if running outside the lane. But not necessarily. I'll explain.

Our rules reference is 5.09(a)(11), which reads in part:
In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire's judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base .....

When we said that you're not necessarily out for interference when running outside the running lane, we're calling attention to a few wrinkles in the rule. Here are the important points to remember when judging interference on 5.09(a)(11):

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.

 

[RunningBum]

And all the talk about it being a bad throw? It's very simple. All Turner had to do was run in the lane. If the ball still hits them, the ump let's it go, because he's running where he's supposed to. He's says he took off from inside the lines (true, and legal), and he ran a straight line to the base. Problem with that is he's not entitled to stay in fair territory the last 45 feet. He put himself in position to be called for interference by staying in fair territory.

 

[aja8888]

Congrats to the Nats! A very good, well coached team.

Maybe next year here (Houston), we will be in it again. However, free agents abound here in Houston!

 

[lucky penny]

Les Nats!

MLB's playoff format is built for teams that get hot at the right time. Every expansion of a playoff structure adds more randomness to the postseason, which in MLB has become just an empty-calorie sweet dessert. Due to its 162-game length, the regular season is a statistically more meaningful measure of the best team. There should be more recognition for the MLB team with the best regular season record.

Any suggestions?

 

[JoeWras]

I’m the same way. But then I also associate Houston with “Oilers”.

, I grew up (well remember) when they were the Colt 45's. Heck I can even remember attending a Houston Buffs game (Houston's minor league team that became the 45's then the Stros.)

Yes, same thing happened to Dodgers and Brewers

It is severely disturbing to change leagues! (Well, this is a conference in any other sport, still disturbing.)

My dad would accidentally say to me: "Cubs are playing Brooklyn today... I mean LA." He had a hard time getting over it.

On the good news front, the Carolina Panthers got put into a "new guy penalty box" by having to play in the west division of the NFC when they were born. After a while, they were allowed to come east. At least they didn't get put into that faux conference/league called the AFC/L.

 

[GrayHare]

Any suggestions?

Absolutely. Depends on the goal. If it is to generate lots of extra revenue, MLB's current expanded postseason format already does that compared to the format decades ago. If it is to find the best team, the top NL and AL teams should face each other for a lengthy World Series, but that's not going to work for profits.

Seems many different compromises should be viable. One I can think of is to divide each league into two divisions. The 4 teams that win their respective divisions qualify for a postseason that has 2 rounds. During the first postseason round, each of those 4 teams plays each of the other teams X times, maybe 6. That process consumes 3 weeks. When that has completed, the two teams with the best first round record face each other in the World Series. One consequence is both series teams could be from the same league, but with interleague play now common that's not as concerning as it would have been in the past.

Or, if no one wants to change the format of the playoffs, some sort of prize can be awarded to the teams that finish with the best regular season record in each league. We're looking for something, anything really, that calls attention to the accomplishment of finishing with the best record. As things sit now, the teams that duked it out all summer to reach the top are largely forgotten unless they advance all the way to the World Series.

Briefly I considered having a separate Series between the best team of each league, but that would often conflict both in scheduling and attention with MLB's current playoff format.

 

[RunningBum]

^^
Not bad. A couple of drawbacks I see.

Elimination games are exciting. Especially exciting are when both teams are in win or lose (game 7). You've eliminated that for all but the World Series.

What do you do about ties, if all teams have the same record? Or 3 do (either tied for best or worst? Or 2 do, for the 2nd spot? Clearly you have some kind of playoff or sudden death game, but you've pushed back the world series, which isn't going to be very popular, especially with TV.

People could probably live with this if you were fixing a real problem, but not too many people seem worried about whether the best team wins the world series, not to mention that you really haven't completely fixed the problem.

 

[Montecfo]

Well Anthony Rendon went deep right after, bailing out the umpire from his date with ignominy, and reminding all of us what schoolyard ballplayers all know well: "ball don't lie!"

Great series by both teams and great win for the Nats.

And..anticipating some of your questions, no, "Ignominy" is not Kate Upton's sister.

 

[aja8888]

And now that the season is over, we sit and wait patiently to see where all the free agents and castoffs will end up for next season.

Any guesses on Cole?

 

[GrayHare]

^^
People could probably live with this if you were fixing a real problem, but not too many people seem worried about whether the best team wins the world series, not to mention that you really haven't completely fixed the problem.

Yes, that is the nature of compromise. Nothing about playoffs will change while ticket sales and TV viewing remain high, it's just not me buying or watching much beyond the boxscores. A new way to acknowledge the best reg season teams can be done independently of all postseason.

 

[JoeWras]

Or, if no one wants to change the format of the playoffs,

Most other sports HAVE changed the playoffs. Hockey is 7 games all the way. That means that the Stanley Cup winner has to win 16 games in the playoffs. This is really an incredible feat.

Football has adjusted. As has the NBA.

I do like the fact that the 162 games of baseball mean so much. But... really, it would be nice to have a 3 game play in for the wildcard. So the series ends in the first days of Nov. NO Big deal.