stewthornley

"CBD is short for cannabidiol" Thanks for explaining it. I first saw the press release from Major League Baseball and had no idea of what CBD was. (I hate acronyms, so thanks for spelling it out.) From what you wrote, it sounds like this will be a legal substance for players - at least off the field. It sounds like it could be a nice product to use with several benefits. Not that I've ever been in danger of going all "Reefer Madness" and have managed to keep alcohol as my only drug of abuse, I might try CBD. I am also subject to the joint player-management drug testing and rules, so I'll confirm that I won't get in trouble for it. Is it legal in Minnesota yet, so that I can buy it at a local Walgreen's? Thanks again for this. Good article.

At some point they will be called out for abandoning the basepath, too. Meanwhile, the great J. W. Gregory cited 9.12(a)(3) about charging an error to a fielder who catches a thrown ball or ground ball in time to put out the batter-runner and fails to tag first or the batter-runner.

In June 1973 I was at an Angels-Twins game. Richie Scheinblum was on first with no or one out when Ken Berry hit a squibber down the first-base line. Joe Decker fielded it and was about to tag Berry, but Berry turned and beat cheeks the other way, running across the plate and beyond. Scheinblum was going to second on the play anyway, and I think Berry was being intentionally comical. I recall the newspaper story saying Berry was out as soon as he crossed the plate. I'm not sure if that's correct or if it was when he was beyond home, abandoning the basepath. It was a funny play with no effect - unlike the Will Craig brainfart.

Twig spoke to our SABR chapter in the spring of 1986 at the Normandy Inn. He asked if someone could drive him back to the Metrodome for the game that night. I took him. At the time I sold a product line for Bradley Exterminating and had a company van with the name emblazoned all over it along with a large picture of a dead bug. Twig thought it was a hoot and said he hoped Herbie or Kirby or Bruno or someone would be out front and see him getting dropped off in that. Twig mentioned his wife, and I asked if she had been here with him in Minneapolis when he played for the Millers. "Nah, not that one anymore," he said, adding with great enthusiasm, "I got a young one now." He was great.

A friend said he heard Buckeyes suggested, which could be cool since it would honor the city's former Negro League team, except THE OSU would probably object. My friend then offered the Woodies. The first game I ever went to, between Cleveland and Minnesota, Woodie Held played shortstop for Cleveland. Woodie Held is also on my all-name baseball team. The entire team is available upon request.

And oversnark apologies to the Pensacola Blue Wahoos, who suggested my name first.

Steamers!

The win has to go to Kolarek unless the scorer considered him to be brief and ineffective. A guideline for brief and ineffective is less than an inning and allowing two earned runs, including inherited runners, to score. He allowed one inherited runner. I wouldn't apply the brief/ineffective rule in this case. He was the pitcher of record when the Dodgers scored two in the third and didn't give up the lead.

Some of you may have seen this from Wednesday's Angels at Minnesota game. Shohei Ottani hit a comebacker to Jake Odorizzi, who jogged toward first and may an underhanded toss that C. J. Cron didn't react to. The ball went by him, and Ohtani went to second. Here are a couple links to the play: https://sports.yahoo.com/did-twins-infielder-trick-his-own-teammates-into-committing-a-ridiculous-error-233250569.html https://www.reddit.com/r/baseball/comments/bp1k0h/cj_cron_doesnt_realize_odorizzi_fielded_a/ I gave Cron an error (with an assist to Ohtani). The next day I heard that Cron's confusion was caused by second-baseman Jonathan Schoop miming the play, sort of like what Starlin Castro did a few years ago: https://www.mlb.com/video/must-c-castro-copies-bryant-c104783183 With Castro's mime, it didn't cause a misplay although first-baseman Anthony Rizzo wasn't happy about it. I looked at the play again from a couple different sources and wondered if it would be appropriate to switch the error to Schoop (I still had about three hours to do so). I looked at the rule: Rule 9.12(a)(1) Comment reads, ". . . The official scorer shall charge an error to a fielder who causes another fielder to misplay a ball—for example, by knocking the ball out of the other fielder’s glove. On such a play, when the official scorer charges an error to the interfering fielder, the official scorer shall not charge an error to the fielder with whom the other fielder interfered." The part about knocking the ball out of another fielder's glove is given as an example of such interference, but it doesn't limit it to physical contact. I checked with Elias Sports Bureau and was told that this should not constitute an error on Schoop, so I left the call alone. It was one of the more interesting plays I've seen. No runs scored, so the Twins have been able to joke about it, and Cron has been a good sport even though he ended up with an error on his record for it. I'm guessing that this might end players horsing around with miming plays. Or not. Stew

As an official scorer, I enjoy reconstructing an inning after an error or passed ball to see if any runs that score are earned or unearned. Next to my regular scoresheet, with the play-by-play as it happens, I start an alternative-fact account on a separate notepad. Errors fall into two primary categories: missed-out errors, which also create or extend the life of a baserunner, and advancement errors, which do not affect the number of outs or the number of baserunners, only the placement of the baserunners. Stew Thornley is one of the Twins official scorers and a baseball historian. He will occasionally provide insight to the decisions official scorers make. If you have any questions you would like him to address in a future story, you can ask them in this Twins Daily thread. You can also read more from Stew at StewThornley.net. Missed-out errors are usually straightforward in reconstruction. If a player reaches base on an error, such as a shortstop booting his ground ball, and scores, his run is unearned. In addition, any runs that score after two out are unearned, at least to the team and also to the pitcher if he was in the game at the time the error occurred. Advancement errors, such as an outfielder fumbling the ball after a hit, are more likely to require a judgment call if a run scores. Also, a run that scores because of an advancement error may be unearned but may become earned depending on subsequent events. When an error or passed ball occurs, scorers should consider the impact after each ensuing play. Consider this sequence: A runner on first steals second and continues to third on an overthrow by the catcher. Situation: runner on third who would be on second without the error.The runner from third scores on a sacrifice fly. The run is unearned at this time although it could become earned depending on subsequent events. The scorer should determine at this time if the runner would have advanced from second to third on the fly. Even though the runner scored from third, it does not mean he could have gone from second to third on the fly. If the fly was of medium depth to left field, the scorer may determine that the runner would still be on second if not for the error. If the fly was to deep right field, the scorer may determine that the runner would have advanced to third on the fly. (If the scorer is unsure, the benefit of the doubt should be given to the pitcher and the judgment made that the runner would still be on second.)The next batter singles. If the scorer’s judgment was that the runner would have advanced to third on the fly ball in the preceding play, then the run that scored on the sacrifice fly becomes earned. If the judgment was that the runner would have remained at second on the fly, then the scorer must make another judgment on whether he could have scored from second on the single. This judgment should be made at the time of the single and tracked as part of the inning being reconstructed if the error had not occurred.The remaining batter or batters complete the inning by making outs with no plays occurring that would have created additional advancement by the runner.In determining if a runner would have been able to score from second on a single to the outfield, as noted above, the scorer may consider many factors. Some obvious ones are the speed of the runner, the strength of the outfielder’s arm, and the nature of the hit. Situational factors should also be considered:Number of outs when the single occurred—the difference between two out and fewer than two out. With two out a runner can get a better jump on a batted ball. He does not have to hold up to see if a line drive or fly ball is caught or hesitate to see if a ground ball makes it through the left side of the infield. With fewer than two out, the runner sometimes has to hold up, and it is more likely that it can be considered that he would not have scored on the hit.Likelihood of the third-base coach sending the runner home. This can be dependent on the number of outs as well as other factors, such as the score of the game. With two out, it is more likely that a team will take a chance and send the runner home. With one out, the coach may be more cautious and likely to hold the runner, determining that there is still a good chance he will be driven in by the batters who follow. With no outs, this is even more likely.If a team is trailing by a large margin, it is less likely to take a chance. Therefore, the scorer has more reason to assume that the runner would not have been waved home. This can be the case even in a two-run game if it is the potential final inning for the batting team and the runner in question is not the tying run.The inning has to be reconstructed based on what follows, even if logic dictates that the inning would have played out differently: a batter singles and goes to second when the outfielder lets the ball by him. The next batter is intentionally walked. The next batter homers. All three runs are earned. We know that the intentional walk would not have occurred if not for the error; however, intentional walks are treated the same as any other walk in reconstructing an inning. Try this one: with one out, a batter reaches first on an error. The next batter triples, scoring the runner (unearned). The next batter hits a routine grounder to the shortstop, who throws home late trying to get the runner coming from third. Can the scorer assume that, without the error, there would have been two outs and the shortstop would have thrown to first for the final out? No. The plays and actions by fielders that occur after an error must be assumed when reconstructing an inning. However, a situation could arise where an out could be assumed if it does not assume any decisions made on the part of fielders. Example: With fewer than two out Simmons singles and advances to second when the center fielder bobbles the ball for an error. Torriente strikes out on a pitch that gets by the catcher. The wild pitch allows Simmons to go to third and Torriente to reach first. If not for the error, Simmons would have been on first, and Torriente—with first base occupied and fewer than two out—would be out automatically. An out on the strikeout could be assumed in this situation. I’ve never gotten heat on the reconstruction of an inning. Give the pitcher the benefit of the doubt when making judgments (benefit of the doubt, not an outright gift). The team in the field is usually happy, and the team at bat doesn’t care. However, what happens if the pitcher affected is battling for the league lead in earned-run average with a pitcher on the other team? I’m hoping to avoid that scenario. Click here to view the article

spinowner: Regarding bottom of the sixth August 4 - that was my call. I went with hit based on the difficulty of the throw. Beltre made a nice backhand of a tricky hop. He was playing the grounder defensively, which can indictate he's having trouble with it. That doesn't mean he can't be charged with an error on the throw that followed (two parts to the play). He did pound the glove before the throw, which is a sign he's set, but he still didn't appear to be in a good position - feet not lined up directly toward first - and he threw a bit across the body from a low arm slot. He often throws from a low arm slot, so that could be ordinary effort for him. But I thought with a throw from that distance, I'd like to see him a little more set in the right alignment to consider it ordinary effort. Judgement call, and I went with hit. Thanks for asking. Good question.

Old Twins Cap: No

No on that one. The second out wasn't a force. The idea with a GIDP is that the batter does something that will create a double play, regardless by decisions by the runners. In this case a runner tried to stretch and was thrown out, so it's a ground ball that's a double play but no GIDP.

Good questions from the San Diego series. (I didn't see the double-switch that got asked about. What happened?) Regarding Myers's throw to second on Berrios's bunt, I also wondered how that would be scored. Had the runner beaten the throw, then it would be a fielder's choice with a sacrifice for Berrios. From the replay, it looked like a good throw would have had the runner beat, so it was an error on Myers for failure to get the out at second. In that case, no sacrifice for Berrios. On the sacrifice fly with an RBI, the way a batter can't get an RBI on a double play is if he grounds into a force or reverse-force double play and is charged with a grounded into double play (GIDP). As it happens, I just wrote about this in what John has dubbed "The Stew Review" after Todd Frazier grounded into a triple play. A standard 643 double play - force at second, batter out at first - is a GIDP. So is a 3-6 reverse force - batter out with a throw to second to tag the runner coming in from first. No RBI on first. But a batter can get an RBI on other kinds of double plays, including ground balls that turn into two outs but don't have two force outs or a reverse-force. In the sacrifice fly in the Twins game, the third out was made on a tag play, with the runner from second trying to go to third. This is a time play (not a timing play, the umpires tell me; they use the term time play). The run crossed before the third out. Since the third out wasn't a force, the run counts and the batter gets an RBI. Here is more of a playing than scoring rules question. What if the runner from second had been doubled off the base rather than tagged out after tagging and trying to advance? Could a run score on that if the runner crossed the plate before the third out? Yes, although this is confusing to a lot of folks, including players and managers. Getting doubled off a base isn't a force, even though it has the same element as a force in that the runner doesn't have to be tagged. In 2010 the Twins lost a run by not knowing this. Punto on third, Span on second with one out and a long fly to center. Punto tagged, Span took off. The ball was caught, and Span was going to be doubled off for the third out. What Punto needed to do was beat cheeks to the plate to cross before the third out. However, he was more focused on waving at Span to get back. He then jogged toward the plate because he thought it wouldn't matter since he thought his run couldn't count if Span was doubled off. There was a lot in the game story the next day about how no one realized that this was still a time play and that Punto's run would have counted had he gotten home before they doubled Span off second. And then the next year the same thing happened with Alexi Casilla. Always pays to know the rules.