Jump to content
Twins Daily
  • Create Account

Otto von Ballpark

Old-Timey Member
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    20,669

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    74

 Content Type 

Profiles

Minnesota Twins News, Rumors & Analysis

Minnesota Twins Videos

2026 Minnesota Twins Top Prospect Rankings

2022 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Minnesota Twins Trade & Free Agent Rumors

Minnesota Twins Fan Guides & Resources

2023 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

The Minnesota Twins Players Project

2024 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2025 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

2026 Minnesota Twins Draft Picks & Signing Bonuses

Forums

Blogs

Events

Store

Downloads

Gallery

Everything posted by Otto von Ballpark

  1. Otto von Ballpark
    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.
  2. Otto von Ballpark
    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.
  3. Otto von Ballpark
    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.
  4. Otto von Ballpark
    "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.
  5. Otto von Ballpark
    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.
  6. 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
  7. Otto von Ballpark
    On the topic of interference, here's a video from a few years ago with an ump explaining it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI82sPn1Uj0
  8. Otto von Ballpark
    I hear you, but Wisler's upside is likely only available because he is out of options. Don't pass on upside just for flexibility. The guys to avoid are Breslow types, or Justin Haley "Rule 5" types, where the flexibility *and* upside is fairly low. (And to the Twins credit, they seem to be learning that?)
  9. Otto von Ballpark
    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.
  10. Otto von Ballpark
    I get that vibe too. Not that Doolittle should be too affected by 11 pitches, but yeah, Alvarez got to see him for one more PA and 3 more pitches. Correa got to see him for a 3rd PA this series too, although he's only seen 4 total pitches. And Strasburg's availability for game 7 likely has nothing to do with whether he throws 104 or 115 pitches in game 6. On the other hand, it's a bit of a gray area. Maybe Doolittle wants the work? Prior to last night, he had only pitched twice in the last 2 weeks, 27 pitches total. It's not necessarily a bad idea to throw a few low-leverage game-action pitches to get ready for game 7 -- he's not going to be used for more than 3-4 outs or 20-some pitches in game 7 anyway. That was the sense I got from Scherzer getting loose during this game too, it was as much preparation for game 7 as it was for game 6.
  11. Otto von Ballpark
    If he had gotten tossed right away, I would have understood it better. But fighting off your own coaches to get tossed after the inning seemed like a bit much! I wonder if Chip Hale made the call to go to Doolittle in the 9th, or if that was from Martinez or had been planned earlier -- I would have left Strasburg in, I think.
  12. Otto von Ballpark
    Here's a direct link to the replay, if anyone wants to re-live the excitement. https://cuts.diamond.mlb.com/FORGE/2019/2019-10/29/f60bf3c7-5565e07c-51532773-csvm-diamondx64-asset_1280x720_59_4000K.mp4
  13. Otto von Ballpark
    Not quite. Turner's foot had not yet touched the bag when he made contact with Gurriel's glove, or when the ball first hit him. (Not that reaching the bag is explicitly part of the rule, although I could see how an umpire could include that in his judgment, especially if they made this kind of play reviewable in the future.)
  14. Otto von Ballpark
    And by doing so, Altuve took the risk that if he contacted the fielder or ball, he too would be out for interference. I think Smoltz mentioned it on the broadcast, but players are taught to try throwing ball through the runner there if necessary, precisely because of the potential interference call.
  15. Otto von Ballpark
    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.
  16. Otto von Ballpark
    Tuesday, Oct. 29 Baseball's back tonight! Could be the last game of the year. 7:07 pm CST Nationals at Astros (World Series Game 6, Astros lead 3-2) TV: FOX Pitching matchup is Strasburg vs Verlander
  17. Otto von Ballpark
    I think that's almost worse than the current system, because players and managers will essentially try to appeal to the video ump. (And will kick up an even bigger fuss if the video ump passes on changing a call.) At least now their objections are mostly for show, and can't possibly change a call (except influencing a makeup call later). Note that even with automated balls and strikes, there will still be a home plate ump, and they'll even have to render their own judgement should there be any problem with the automated system (not sure how often that has happened in testing). Although for replay in the field (not ball/strike calls), I love the idea of an extra video ump, and wish that took the place of the silly challenge system.
  18. Otto von Ballpark
    Well, you didn't say *just* rotations (or just top 3 of a rotation) -- you said starting 9 too, and the Dodgers best the Nats in that category. I agree they're pretty close, though. But again, a lack of depth hasn't really hurt the Nats in this series. They're still running out their complete starting 9 (sans Suzuki the last 2 games), plus their top 4 starters minus 1 start, with no reported injuries of note beyond that. And their mediocre middle relievers have yet to blow a game (closest they came was game 4, but the Nats were already down 3 runs in the 7th at the time). A far bigger problem than a lack of depth: Astros have a .849 OPS for the series; Nats .693. (And the superstar Rendon is at .573, lower than any Astro batter except Reddick.) Astros have 4 guys over 1.000 OPS, Nats only 1. And on the SP side, even before Game 5 and the Scherzer news, Astros SP had a 3.97 ERA, Nats 4.84. Losing Scherzer definitely hurts, although by game 5 he was looking more like a hail mary pass for the Nats than anything.
  19. Otto von Ballpark
    The bolded part is where we disagree. If there are significant day-to-day injuries for the Nats right now, beyond Scherzer and Suzuki, they are completely eluding media reporting. (And Suzuki was 3-for-30 with 11 Ks and 3 GDPs this postseason before he went down, plus negative defensive metrics and pitch framing grades for the season -- I'm not sure his absence is that much of a negative.) Any "injuries might be costing the Nats the title" narrative is virtually 100% reliant on Scherzer -- and Scherzer was an important loss, but he likely wasn't going to be able to do it by himself anyway.
  20. Otto von Ballpark
    That sounds about right. I'd like to see something like the Lance McCullers Jr. plan circa 2015 -- he's going to start in the minors, so just give him shorter starts and a lot of time between starts down there early in the season. If he's really good, bring him up -- but be ready to ease back on him as needed, maybe even sending him back down again for rest or putting him on the IL. I don't know if that's enough to keep him under 140 (McCullers finished with 164, including postseason), but we don't really need a firm 140 limit anyway. That said, given his health history (Graterol has already had TJ surgery, plus shoulder trouble), he may be on the IL enough -- or we may find ourselves backing off enough -- to keep him under 140 anyway.
  21. Otto von Ballpark
    Out of curiosity, if Falvey is aspirational, why do you think he turned down the interview?
  22. Otto von Ballpark
    Given revenue limitations, I'll also readily agree that it's an easier decision to leave Tampa than Minnesota! So there's something to be said for the notion that Falvey was more comfortable staying here too.
  23. Otto von Ballpark
    Thanks. I mistakenly thought Bloom was promoted higher when Friedman left after 2014, but I guess he was technically just "VP of baseball operations" at that point. My bad. But he was further promoted in 2016 too -- and I think titles and divisions of responsibility can vary a lot between organizations. Both Bloom and Falvey seemed to take big steps forward in their respective careers in 2011 and 2016, so I'd call them roughly even in that regard. Yeah, if that's his ultimate goal, he probably takes the interview and doesn't think twice about Bloom. I don't know what his ultimate goal is, though, and the fact that he *didn't* take the interview suggests that maybe it wasn't his ultimate goal? Which opens us up to speculating about other factors, which is all I was doing in this thread. And speculating that he may have calculated low odds seems just as valid here as citing his hometown. FWIW, worth keeping in mind that it wasn't a quick decision either -- the Boston job has been open since early September. There's been plenty of time for Falvey to see Boston's approach, time for information to spread, and time for a variety of factors to influence the decision.
  24. Otto von Ballpark
    No, I haven't seen anything official -- but I don't think they generally announce anything official about these things either. (And with good reason -- they don't want to box themselves in.) FWIW, while he didn't directly cite any sources, Lavelle recently wrote "Even if he’s stretched out to start next season, he would be on an innings limit": http://www.startribune.com/twins-thinking-aggressively-when-assessing-roster-needs-free-agent-market/562665252/ Given his career to date, I'd be pretty surprised if Graterol exceeded 140 inning in 2020.
  25. Otto von Ballpark
    Yeah. Even if we assume that Falvey is confident, with a healthy ego (which is fair, for someone in his position), it's not like he's living in a vacuum either. He's probably heard a lot better "inside info" about the Boston search than any of us ever will. Falvey knows people with Boston. He knows Bloom. If he hears, on good authority, that it's Bloom's job if he wants it, and knows Bloom wants out of Tampa (which seems obvious), then it doesn't really take a lack of ego to shift gears a bit toward a different goal. (And declining the interview can save some ego, too, as opposed to an interview and rejection.) Heck, maybe he thinks he can spin himself to Twins ownership in extension talks as Boston's #1 target if he doesn't interview and finish runner-up to Bloom.
×
×
  • Create New...