Twins (Paddack) vs Dodgers (Glasnow): 7/23/25, 3:10pm

[jkcarew]

5 minutes ago, Aggies7 said:

But considering who was on deck, I do it every time

And there were 2 out. I tend to agree with this exception to the rule there. Can’t walk him. Unbelievable…and most of the pitches weren’t even close to the strike zone.

[AceWrigley]

Rocco didn't even give Paddack a chance at the 7th inning.

[IndyTwinsFan]

9 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

And the reason it was Jax?

 

Chief, I have a pretty good idea where you're going with this, and it starts with Duran going 2 innings last night when there wasn't really a good reason to.  Plus its compounded by the fact that we probably have no one else in the bullpen rotation with the ability and mindset to close, which is an organizational concern. 

Given that, and given Jax' past history in a closing role, I have to wonder why Rocco thought Jax was the best option, before the game even started. 

[alexlegge]

I find it silly that checked swing calls aren’t reviewable in that situation.
 

They have nothing to do with the strike zone, just something which is clearly defined for which we have good video available,

And it’s not like a fair/foul calls on ground balls, where subsequent elements unfold in the play and make a replay reversal more complicated.

[Western SD Fan]

2 minutes ago, BillyBallLives said:

THANK YOU....absolutely. Someone on TD the other day was saying they don't.  Door swings both ways, but it will be a better game with ABS...100% ABS or none I say. 

ABS won't fix a checked swing call.  Even if it could, MLB would have to fix the rule on a checked swing before implementing any form of ABS on it.  The rule is so vague that an ump could call a swing anytime the bat leaves the resting position of the batter. 

[Aggies7]

4 minutes ago, jkcarew said:

And there were 2 out. I tend to agree with this exception to the rule there. Can’t walk him. Unbelievable…and most of the pitches weren’t even close to the strike zone.

And it’s not like you even have to throw the intentional walk pitches anymore. I know sometimes that can take a picture out of a rhythm. It was like you said a straight up choke, inexcusable.

[h2oface]

1 minute ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Way too many fans will fixate on the check swing because it's easier than acknowledging that following that pitch 4 straight hitters reached base, one of whom (Ruiz) can't hit, and never had to even take a swing. That's called choking. This game wasn't stolen, the Twins gave it away. 

EXCEPT, by the rules, the game was over and the following at bat and choices would not have happened, if not for the obvious umpire error. It was over with the bases clean.

I agree, though, that Jax was a massive choker and Ruiz should have been taken out in aggressive order. Jax can't handle the closer pressure. Ruiz was his to destroy.

[The Great Hambino]

2 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

I also dont intentionally walk the tying run into scoring position, and the winning run to 1st, either.

I don't care who is at the plate. Ohtani, or Babe Ruth..

 

It didn't help that Jax pitched to Ruiz like he was still facing Ohtani

[BillyBallLives]

6 minutes ago, KirbyDome89 said:

Way too many fans will fixate on the check swing because it's easier than acknowledging that following that pitch 4 straight hitters reached base, one of whom (Ruiz) can't hit, and never had to even take a swing. That's called choking. This game wasn't stolen, the Twins gave it away. 

Maybe both are true?

The game was over if the ump rings up Betts.
The bad call gave the Dodgers life.
Jax gave them the win.
So, both are true.

 

[alexlegge]

1 minute ago, h2oface said:

EXCEPT, by the rules, the game was over and the following at bat and choices would not have happened, if not for the obvious umpire error. It was over with the bases clean.

I agree, though, that Jax was a massive choker

Yep.  The first base umpire screwed the Twins, then the Twins screwed the Twins. 

Mediocre teams aren’t immune from bad luck.

 

 

[mnfireman]

27 minutes ago, h2oface said:

Game shouild have been over. Check swing was a strike. Umpire missed such an important call. Coiuldn't pull the trigger. They DO change games.

I'm not usually one to call out umpires for bad calls, but listening to the radio crew, Perkins was all over the HP ump for missing pitches, basically sounding like he'd changed his zone late.

And the check swing call was horrible, Betts even smiled when given a second chance.

[USAFChief]

2 minutes ago, alexlegge said:

I find it silly that checked swing calls aren’t reviewable in that situation.
They have nothing to do with the strike zone, just something which is clearly defined for which we have good video available,

And it’s not like a fair/foul calls on ground balls, where subsequent elements unfold in the play and make a replay reversal more complicated.

Clearly defined?

"Check swing" isn't defined at all in the MLB rule book.

[h2oface]

3 minutes ago, alexlegge said:

I find it silly that checked swing calls aren’t reviewable in that situation.
 

They have nothing to do with the strike zone, just something which is clearly defined for which we have good video available,

And it’s not like a fair/foul calls on ground balls, where subsequent elements unfold in the play and make a replay reversal more complicated.

Exactly. The umpire can't make the call accurately anyway, Standing behind first (or third). It is so obvious that it is a perfect call for the cameras and review. ESPECIALLY IN THE NINTH/EXTRA INNINGS. Like the final 2 minutes of a Basketball game when everything should be made correct as possible, 

More whining from the umpire union and Commisioner not being a Manfraud, no doubt.

[h2oface]

2 minutes ago, mnfireman said:

I'm not usually one to call out umpires for bad calls, but listening to the radio crew, Perkins was all over the HP ump for missing pitches, basically sounding like he'd changed his zone late.

And the check swing call was horrible, Betts even smiled when given a second chance.

Did you see the game/play/swing? So obvious. Check the replay.

[IndyTwinsFan]

5 minutes ago, BillyBallLives said:

Maybe both are true?

The game was over if the ump rings up Betts.
The bad call gave the Dodgers life.
Jax gave them the win.
So, both are true.

 

A good and valid point. 

[Hubie29]

33 minutes ago, h2oface said:

Jax a chocker in the closer role.

This game was stolen by the F'n UMPIRE!

Home field advantage. 

I hate UMPIRES!

Are you related to Peter? It's nice to see Baldelli chalk up another loss.

[Twindy]

Anybody notice that the pitch Jak threw to Freeman was pretty much middle middle. Very hittable. I know he had a 2-2 count, but I think he served one up.

[h2oface]

2 minutes ago, Hubie29 said:

Are you related to Peter? It's nice to see Baldelli chock up another loss.

No, 528 Hubie. This is a special rage today.

[mnfireman]

1 minute ago, h2oface said:

Did you see the game/play/swing? So obvious. Check the replay.

Yes, I watched it live and re-watched on Twins TV

[BillyBallLives]

6 minutes ago, Western SD Fan said:

ABS won't fix a checked swing call.  Even if it could, MLB would have to fix the rule on a checked swing before implementing any form of ABS on it.  The rule is so vague that an ump could call a swing anytime the bat leaves the resting position of the batter. 

I was speaking in generic terms...how MLB will be a better game with ABS....but even so.....not to long ago the idea of ABS was insane.....so, check swings. 

When umps are making a judgement on checked swings it comes down to: the position of the bat,  the movement of the hands and wrists,  the batter’s overall body motion, and where the barrel of the bat went.

It's not that "vague". 

[alexlegge]

7 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

Clearly defined?

"Check swing" isn't defined at all in the MLB rule book.

Whether or not they have it typed out, I’ve always heard it defined as whether the bat crosses the plane of the plate. That can be assessed fairly easily with video. Probably wouldn’t be challenged often if it were reviewable since many times it *is* truly borderline - far more frequently than is the case for calls on the bases given that sometimes only a portion of the bat crosses.
 

But in some instances it’s very clear.

[Western SD Fan]

2 minutes ago, Twindy said:

Anybody notice that the pitch Jak threw to Freeman was pretty much middle middle. Very hittable. I know he had a 2-2 count, but I think he served one up.

It was a 1-2 count so even more egregious that he threw a middle middle pitch.  He had two pitches to waste to try to get him out.  Also, walking a faster equivalent of Vazquez's batting skills didn't help the situation. 

[Aggies7]

1 minute ago, BillyBallLives said:

I was speaking in generic terms...how MLB will be a better game with ABS....but even so.....not to long ago the idea of ABS was insane.....so, check swings. 

When umps are making a judgement on checked swings it comes down to: the position of the bat,  the movement of the hands and wrists,  the batter’s overall body motion, and where the barrel of the bat went.

It's not that "vague". 

Yes, driving was much more dangerous back in the old days.

I’ll show myself out

[BillyBallLives]

4 minutes ago, Twindy said:

Anybody notice that the pitch Jak threw to Freeman was pretty much middle middle. Very hittable. I know he had a 2-2 count, but I think he served one up.

Jax missed the middle by a few centimeters to the left. 

[h2oface]

1 minute ago, BillyBallLives said:

I was speaking in generic terms...how MLB will be a better game with ABS....but even so.....not to long ago the idea of ABS was insane.....so, check swings. 

When umps are making a judgement on checked swings it comes down to: the position of the bat,  the movement of the hands and wrists,  the batter’s overall body motion, and where the barrel of the bat went.

It's not that "vague". 

It is not an ABS review. Just look at it on the screen, the side video. An umpire with any integrity would reverse his call and WANT to make it right. So make it available, especially in the last inning, for rieview and challenge! So Simple. If the umpire is a pompous Joe West type, then the whole crew can override him. So very simple. Needs to be changed for next year. 

[Western SD Fan]

2 minutes ago, alexlegge said:

Whether or not they have it typed out, I’ve always heard it defined as whether the bat crosses the plane of the plate. That can be assessed fairly easily with video. Probably wouldn’t be challenged often if it were reviewable since many times it *is* truly borderline - far more frequently than is the case for calls on the bases given that sometimes only a portion of the bat crosses.
 

But in some instances it’s very clear.

That's the difference.  The MLB strike zone is clearly defined in the rule book and can then be calibrated into an ABS system.  A check swing is not defined.  Yes, there is an "understanding" to what a check swing may or may not be, but it's still up to the umpire.  Until it is clearly defined in the rule book, we have to accept the result of what is called on the field.  Jax still had it all under his own control, even with the not-called check swing and didn't execute.

[h2oface]

5 minutes ago, Western SD Fan said:

That's the difference.  The MLB strike zone is clearly defined in the rule book and can then be calibrated into an ABS system.  A check swing is not defined.  Yes, there is an "understanding" to what a check swing may or may not be, but it's still up to the umpire.  Until it is clearly defined in the rule book, we have to accept the result of what is called on the field.  Jax still had it all under his own control, even with the not-called check swing and didn't execute.

So just let them review the side video in the ninth/extra innings (at least). Like a flagrant foul, there will still be an opinion, but at least the umpire can get help to do his job correctly, and not make a fool of himself when he is so obviously wrong. It is really very simple. The angle from behind the base is so inferior for making a call, anyway. Give them better tools to be an umpire, and not have a third party affect the game so. Let the actual players determine the game.

[USAFChief]

13 minutes ago, alexlegge said:

Whether or not they have it typed out, I’ve always heard it defined as whether the bat crosses the plane of the plate. That can be assessed fairly easily with video. Probably wouldn’t be challenged often if it were reviewable since many times it *is* truly borderline - far more frequently than is the case for calls on the bases given that sometimes only a portion of the bat crosses.
 

But in some instances it’s very clear.

You heard wrong.

Officially there is no such thing. The MLB rule book makes no mention of check swing. None.

A swinging strike is "an attempt to hit the ball"

 

[alexlegge]

2 minutes ago, Western SD Fan said:

That's the difference.  The MLB strike zone is clearly defined in the rule book and can then be calibrated into an ABS system.  A check swing is not defined.  Yes, there is an "understanding" to what a check swing may or may not be, but it's still up to the umpire.  Until it is clearly defined in the rule book, we have to accept the result of what is called on the field.  Jax still had it all under his own control, even with the not-called check swing and didn't execute.

The rule book *does* say what a swing is defined as, however. Sure, even that definition is purposefully vague….but there is room for ambiguity even in the formalized replay review process.
 

Though I do tend to agree that they should go ahead and formalize what a check is as part of a rule change; everyone uses the same definition already anyway, so there wouldn’t be any real mental adjustment…

[Western SD Fan]

16 minutes ago, USAFChief said:

You heard wrong.

Officially there is no such thing. The MLB rule book makes no mention of check swing. None.

A swinging strike is "an attempt to hit the ball"

 

Absolutely, a really crazy umpire could exploit this to suggest that anytime that the bat leaves the rested position of the batter, there is an "attempt to hit the ball".  If the rule is so clear, then why don't they write it down so umpires can be judged by such rule.  You can't assign something that is undefined. 

For those of us who watch football, we complain all the time about the nature of how PI's or hits on the QB are called.  At least those are better defined than what a "swing" is in baseball.  I would love a definition as precise as the NFL's PI rule for check swings. 

EDIT:  I'll repeat this again.  Don't blame an umpire on a vague rule when your pitcher doesn't execute.  He still walked the equivalent of Keirsey Jr and threw an almost middle middle pitch to Freeman.