2019 MLB (Non-Twins) Postseason Discussion Thread

[Otto von Ballpark]

Here's a very similar interference call from last season (plus a similar manager ejection), on a dribbler up the third base line:

 

https://mediadownloads.mlb.com/mlbam/mp4/2018/08/10/2367947183/1533936580503/asset_1800K.mp4

[Mike Sixel]

 

I didn't like it, but the ruling was correct. Rule [5.09(a)(11)]:

 

 

Avoiding contact -- even incidental contact -- between the runner and fielder, or runner and ball, is the whole reason the "running lane" exists. If the runner chooses not to use the running lane, and contact is made with the fielder or ball, it's interference, whether intentional or not. It's a risk the runner takes to get a slightly more direct path to the bag.

 

In this case, Turner didn't use the running lane, contacted Gurriel's glove just before the ball arrived, and of course the ball hit him as well.

 

It seemed crazy at the time, but actually it's a pretty obvious interference call.

 

Except it was the last step:

 

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.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Strasburg threw 2 pitches in the 9th. Does that make him appreciably less of an option for game 7 duty?

 

Trivia time: Randy Johnson threw 104 pitches in 2001's game 6 -- exactly the same as Strasburg last night!

 

FWIW, I wonder if Johnson's pitches were lower stress -- 59 of those pitches came after the Diamondbacks had already staked him to a 12-0 lead, and 47 after it went to 15-0. Not that MLB players probably let up too much in World Series Game 6, but Strasburg was undeniably in much higher leverage spots for 8 innings last night. That might be a greater factor in his Game 7 availability than him coming out for a low-leverage 9th.

No, I don't think it changes Strasburg's availability, but there was no way to know he'd get an out on two pitches in the ninth. Given the lead, he should have sat in case of emergency for tonight.

[Vanimal46]

Weird quirk about this series that I just realized... Neither team has won a home game so far!

[Mike Sixel]

 

Weird quirk about this series that I just realized... Neither team has won a home game so far!

 

First time in 1470 seven game series across the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB that the visitor has won the first 6 games. 

 

If I read that correctly last night, first time EVER in the four major sports.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

No, I don't think it changes Strasburg's availability, but there was no way to know he'd get an out on two pitches in the ninth. Given the lead, he should have sat in case of emergency for tonight.

Maybe not exactly two pitches, but they could have known he was going to face only one batter, which would only be a few pitches. (And he only needed 5 pitches to get through the 8th inning.)

 

If he threw 5 pitches to that one batter in the 9th, that still doesn't change his availability for game 7. Nor do his warm-up pitches for 9th.

 

Maybe they wanted to get Doolittle a little work, but not have to face RHB Gurriel, and/or have to get all 3 outs (which would increase the risk of Doolittle potentially needing to throw 20 pitches).

 

It's an interesting decision, but such a marginal one that I don't think it really matters. If Strasburg doesn't pitch tonight, it will have nothing to do with him coming out for the ninth last night.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Except it was the last step:

 

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.

"exit the lane"

 

Turner never entered the lane, so he couldn't exit it, so that part of the rule doesn't apply to him.

 

If Turner had ran down the line, in the lane, and then made the exact same final step to the base and contacted the glove and ball in exactly the same way, he would not have been ruled as committing interference.

 

It seems kind of silly in this specific instance, but that's the rule. It's why the lane exists.

 

Maybe we'll see the double-wide bag in MLB now, where the runner's bag is on the foul side of the line, and the fielder's bag is on the fair side. Then the runner's straight path will go through the lane anyway.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Maybe not exactly two pitches, but they could have known he was going to face only one batter, which would only be a few pitches. (And he only needed 5 pitches to get through the 8th inning.)

 

If he threw 5 pitches to that one batter in the 9th, that still doesn't change his availability for game 7. Nor do his warm-up pitches for 9th.

 

Maybe they wanted to get Doolittle a little work, but not have to face RHB Gurriel, and/or have to get all 3 outs (which would increase the risk of Doolittle potentially needing to throw 20 pitches).

 

It's an interesting decision, but such a marginal one that I don't think it really matters. If Strasburg doesn't pitch tonight, it will have nothing to do with him coming out for the ninth last night.

Yeah, given that he threw two pitches, it really doesn't matter.

[sampleSizeOfOne]

Weird quirk about this series that I just realized... Neither team has won a home game so far!

Yeah, it has been a while since a team wins a series by winning all there games in one stadium. I hope it happens tonight...

 

And sorry i ain't been contributing to this here discussion.

 

A friend said the post season had been cancelled, and when our 5 game series didn't have a 4th game, i kinda believed him.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

I understand that Strasburg will likely opt out, but he's not a free agent. That reporting is simply inaccurate. I heard it on the radio pregame tonight. Then again, the game feed from MLB.com for radio was the Astros feed, and they apparently haven't ever watched baseball outside of Houston.

Good point. While I put the odds of him opting out at 95%, it's still not a sure thing until he does it.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

First time in 1470 seven game series across the NFL, NHL, NBA, MLB that the visitor has won the first 6 games. 

 

If I read that correctly last night, first time EVER in the four major sports.

Well, the NFL doesn't really apply!

 

But yes, you read it right.

 

Apparently the 1937 "Junior World Series" (International League vs American Association) saw the road team win all 7 games. And the format was 3-4 instead of the modern 2-3-2 -- Newark lost the first 3 at home, then swept the next 4 on the road.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Good point. While I put the odds of him opting out at 95%, it's still not a sure thing until he does it.

If he gets to the opt out deadline without a contract extension, it's probably 95%.

 

But I suspect he may come to an extension agreement with the Nats before that point.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If he gets to the opt out deadline without a contract extension, it's probably 95%.

 

But I suspect he may come to an extension agreement with the Nats before that point.

Oh yeah, didn't even think of that. Of course, that's a pretty likely outcome.

[MMMordabito]

Epic pitching matchup for Game 7 ....  Hope it's a good one.

[Mike Sixel]

I'd like a game where we don't notice the awful umpiring....

[Mike Sixel]

 

Well, the NFL doesn't really apply!

 

But yes, you read it right.

 

Apparently the 1937 "Junior World Series" (International League vs American Association) saw the road team win all 7 games. And the format was 3-4 instead of the modern 2-3-2 -- Newark lost the first 3 at home, then swept the next 4 on the road.

 

You don't recall the classic 1965 7 game playoff series between the, um, two AFL teams? It was a bad idea, clearly.....

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

As the rule stands now, it’s basically illegal to run a straight line to first base.

 

The batter-runner starts in fair territory, must swerve slightly into foul territory to get into that running lane, then exit the running lane at the very last moment to touch first base.

 

The best solution imo is for MLB to widen the running lane another three feet inside fair territory in addition to the existing three foot lane outside. Should have been done long ago, probably.

[Mike Sixel]

From what I read on line, most retired baseball players find the interpretation last night bad, very bad.

 

The rule should be about where the runner runs, not where the throw goes. The runner can't control a bad throw.....

 

Draw a lane, if they stay in it, no interference as long as they aren't swinging around their arms.....

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

As the rule stands now, it’s basically illegal to run a straight line to first base.

The batter-runner starts in fair territory, must swerve slightly into foul territory to get into that running lane, then exit the running lane at the very last moment to touch first base.

The best solution imo is for MLB to widen the running lane another three feet inside fair territory in addition to the existing three foot lane outside. Should have been done long ago, probably.

No, it's not illegal to run that line (straight to first base in fair territory). Players do it all the time.

 

However, if the runner contacts the ball or a fielder while running that line (or immediately after running that line), the runner is responsible for the interference. It seems silly in some cases, I know, but that's the rule -- and it's way better than making the ump decide who to blame between runner and fielders, or make the ump judge intent.

 

Adding a running lane in fair territory would defeat the purpose of the running lane altogether, which is to encourage runners to leave that path clear. A better solution would be the double first base bag, which is already used in softball and other places.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

From what I read on line, most retired baseball players find the interpretation last night bad, very bad.

I understand why players -- retired or otherwise -- wouldn't like it. But I also understand why the rule is there in the first place, and why umps call it like they did last night.

 

 

The rule should be about where the runner runs, not where the throw goes. The runner can't control a bad throw.....

 

Draw a lane, if they stay in it, no interference as long as they aren't swinging around their arms.....

The rule *is* about where the runner runs! And if they stay in the lane, there won't be interference (as long as they're not swinging around their arms ).

 

The problem is, the lane isn't in a straight path to first base. The double first base bag would solve that issue.

[ashbury]

 

Adding a running lane in fair territory would defeat the purpose of the running lane altogether, which is to encourage runners to leave that path clear. A better solution would be the double first base bag, which is already used in softball and other places.

Baseball's roots are as a fielding game, and all this strikeout and walk and home run nonsense got tacked on later. as a means to keep the competition fair

 

Fair territory belongs to the fielders. That's why they aren't obligated to try to make plays in foul territory. (There used to be a fair-foul hit in the early days, but I digress.)

 

When a fielder picks up the ball in fair territory and tries to make a throw to fair territory, the rules should support that, and the enforcement should likewise be in that spirit, IMO.

 

A thrown ball can't zigzag. So if any non-linear path is required, to support the defense attempting a play, the rules should put the burden on the runner.

 

A double bag in foul territory would be a good solution.

[Mike Sixel]

 

I understand why players -- retired or otherwise -- wouldn't like it. But I also understand why the rule is there in the first place, and why umps call it like they did last night.

 

 

The rule *is* about where the runner runs! And if they stay in the lane, there won't be interference (as long as they're not swinging around their arms ).

 

The problem is, the lane isn't in a straight path to first base. The double first base bag would solve that issue.

 

He WAS in the lane when the interference happened....it was also the last step where it happened....

 

Again, the runner can't control where the ball goes. If he's in a lane, he should be allowed to be in the lane, which he was when the interference happened.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

No, it's not illegal to run that line (straight to first base in fair territory). Players do it all the time.

 

However, if the runner contacts the ball or a fielder while running that line (or immediately after running that line), the runner is responsible for the interference. It seems silly in some cases, I know, but that's the rule -- and it's way better than making the ump decide who to blame between runner and fielders, or make the ump judge intent.

 

Adding a running lane in fair territory would defeat the purpose of the running lane altogether, which is to encourage runners to leave that path clear. A better solution would be the double first base bag, which is already used in softball and other places.

I disagree. Extending the running lane into fair territory would only defeat the purpose of the foul territory running lane—since runners don’t use that foul territory lane anyway (some may use it; some data would be helpful). My point is that the natural route of the runner is to begin running while in fair territory when they leave the batter’s box.

[Mike Sixel]

 

Baseball's roots are as a fielding game, and all this strikeout and walk and home run nonsense got tacked on later. as a means to keep the competition fair

 

Fair territory belongs to the fielders. That's why they aren't obligated to try to make plays in foul territory. (There used to be a fair-foul hit in the early days, but I digress.)

 

When a fielder picks up the ball in fair territory and tries to make a throw to fair territory, the rules should support that, and the enforcement should likewise be in that spirit, IMO.

 

A thrown ball can't zigzag. So if any non-linear path is required, to support the defense attempting a play, the rules should put the burden on the runner.

 

That's really bad. Why should a runner run a slower route to get to first, in cases there is a bad throw? How would a runner know a bad throw happened, behind him so he could move? 

 

Put in a lane, if he's in the lane THAT IS A STRAIGHT LINE, it's the fielder's fault if the throw hits him....simple rule.

[ashbury]

That's really bad. Why should a runner run a slower route to get to first, in cases there is a bad throw?

I'm not talking about anything situational, so it has nothing to do with whether a throw is even made, not its quality.

 

A runner on first has to touch second base on his way to third when advancing on a single, even if it would be slower than just heading straight to third. The game has rules.

 

I think this rule should be sharpened up, is all. Foul territory belongs to the runner, that seems simple enough. A little exception for the right handed batter to cut through in front of the plate to get to the running lane doesn't seem complicated either.

 

They could post a sign like on my neighbor's yard, "Keep Off The Grass", as a warning to batter-runners.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

He WAS in the lane when the interference happened....it was also the last step where it happened....

Maybe we're getting our terms confused? I am talking about the running lane, which is between the foul line and the extra line in foul territory. Turner never came close to that.

 

If he had, it's likely his last step wouldn't have been where it was -- but even if it was, he would have still received the benefit of the doubt about his collision with fielder and ball, from the rulebook and likely from the umpire as well.

[Hrbowski]

 

He WAS in the lane when the interference happened....it was also the last step where it happened....

 

Again, the runner can't control where the ball goes. If he's in a lane, he should be allowed to be in the lane, which he was when the interference happened.

??? Turner was never in the legal running lane, which is required for the "last step" rule to apply. It also doesn't matter whether the runner can control where the ball goes, because he can control where he runs. Holbrook was 110% right on his call.

[Hosken Bombo Disco]

Maybe we're getting our terms confused? I am talking about the running lane, which is between the foul line and the extra line in foul territory. Turner never came close to that.

 

If he had, it's likely his last step wouldn't have been where it was -- but even if it was, he would have still received the benefit of the doubt about his collision with fielder and ball, from the rulebook and likely from the umpire as well.

Right, and I agree with that, but I think where we are getting confused is that it’s not fair to the runner, who begins his sprint to first in fair territory. Fair call or not, I don’t think Turner was doing anything flagrant or disruptive by the way he ran to first.

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

I disagree. Extending the running lane into fair territory would only defeat the purpose of the foul territory running lane—since runners don’t use that foul territory lane anyway (some may use it; some data would be helpful). My point is that the natural route of the runner is to begin running while in fair territory when they leave the batter’s box.

Well, the purpose of the foul territory running lane is to keep the runner as much out of fair territory as possible. That purpose would indeed be defeated if another, equal, fair territory running lane was created.

 

Also, worth noting that the foul line itself is considered part of the current running lane, and is also considered fair territory. (And overlaps with the base.) Turner didn't ever have to run in foul territory to be in compliance with the rule here -- just getting on the baseline would have been enough. And frankly, just close to the baseline (one foot, maybe?), at some point in his sprint, and the ump probably doesn't make the judgement call of interference either, but Turner was never anywhere close to the baseline.

 

Also worth remembering that this probably doesn't affect left-handed batters....

[Otto von Ballpark]

 

Right, and I agree with that, but I think where we are getting confused is that it’s not fair to the runner, who begins his sprint to first in fair territory. Fair call or not, I don’t think Turner was doing anything flagrant or disruptive by the way he ran to first.

I agree, Turner wasn't doing anything flagrant or disruptive by the way he ran to first -- but that's not the standard of the rulebook (and I'm frankly glad it isn't, because that would open up a whole 'nother can of worms!).

 

The current setup is in fact "fair" to the runner in that it's codified in the common rulebook -- the Astros runners played the game last night under the same rules, but just avoided the circumstance that happened to Turner.

 

I agree, though, that the current setup may not be equitable for the runner, especially a right-handed one, but I don't want umps going rogue to make that determination either. It should be addressed by a change to the rulebook and a change to the base itself.