BBTF.org
Login | Register

/m/braves

  • My Memberships -
  • Login to edit.

    • Wednesday, May 22, 2013

    Gattis, Freeman lead Braves past Twins 5-4 in 10th

    (sports.yahoo.com)
    • Facebook
    • Google+
    • Twitter
    • E-mail
    posted 17 hours ago by Brian White to braves, evan gattis, pinch-hit dingers, twins  |  9 comment(s)

    The Braves have a problem: They can’t hold late inning leads because all their non-Kimbrel relievers keep getting hurt.

    The Braves have a solution to their problem: More Evan Gattis pinch hit home runs.

    Evan Gattis just keeps coming through for the Atlanta Braves.

    The rookie hit a two-out, pinch-hit homer in the ninth to send the game to extra innings and Freddie Freeman won it in the 10th, sending the Braves to their fifth straight win, 5-4 over the slumping Minnesota Twins on Tuesday ...

    Read More...

    Reader Comments and Retorts

    Go to end of page

    Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

    Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 > 
    1. AT-AT at bat@AT&T posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:00 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    way to leave chipper, broken-bat up the middle-right, off-the-bag 1B-man and even then it looked like an out... i say we forget about that and replay it with bases loaded and 1 OUT !
    + more money to be made
    + more cans and bottles to be thrown
    - schedule problems
    - chipper could leave with a strikeout

    discussed the infield fly with a couple of friends, conclusion : just a wrong call !
    let´s see what lady justice does !!


    2. Dale H. posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:06 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Former Cardinal manager disallows the protest. Nice. They couldn't even get an impartial figurehead to make the call. Of course had he ruled the other way, there was still an issue.

    (edit: and then changes his story from "I disallowed it" to "Wren dropped the protest")
    3. Mike A posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:11 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    To be fair, Torre is a former Brave manager as well.

    I can't really blame Joe, it was an awful call but a judgment call just the same. And you can't allow replays over judgment calls, else we'd be replaying half the games.

    I pretty much agree with everything Bradley wrote in this article. Which is odd, since I pretty much never agree with Bradley.
    4. SteveF posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:17 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Whatever consequences there should be should be felt by the umpiring crew. I wouldn't use this crew again for the rest of the playoffs.
    5. Bitter Calculus Instructor posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:17 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Infield fly is a judgment call. Upholding the protest would be a bad precedent. Also, the last time a protest was upheld was 26 years ago.
    6. Crispix Attacks 2: Swag Airlines posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:21 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    As I understand it there is no precedent for reviewing an invocation of the outfield fly rule.
    7. AT-AT at bat@AT&T posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:23 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    In looking at the rule, there's 24 hours you have to make the report. In the circumstances, I think, it just didn't make sense for that to take place.


    so this is how it´s gonna be ? i am disgusted !
    8. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:24 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Former Cardinal manager disallows the protest.


    This makes Joe having to watch Frank die a little bit more entertaining.
    9. Tippecanoe posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:28 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    The umpires circled the wagons and all stood behind the call. It's almost like these kind of things have happened before and they know how to agree to a story.

    The Bradley article sounds like whining. Was he complaining about the format before the result?
    10. Rickey Fredonia Fudge Duckery Precious Twiddle posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:34 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    The umpires circled the wagons and all stood behind the call.


    Makes for a tighter kill zone.
    11. SoSH U at work posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:44 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I read the thread before I saw the call, so I figured the SS was racing after the ball, rather than meandering back under it as he was. While the call was made too late* and a little deeper than usual, the call itself was fine. That's a perfectly legitimate use of the infield fly rule.**

    And MLB upholding the protest or doing anything to overturn it would have been a far greater travesty than the call, that's for damn sure.

    * I'm not sure how that hurt the Braves in any way.

    ** Though if MLB wants to get rid of the IF fly rule altogether, I'm on board.


    12. The Ghost of Sox Fans Past  posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:49 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    The purpose of the IFR is to prevent a fielder not catching it and turning a ground ball double play. So perhas it shouldn't be an IF if teh ball is so deep into the OF that a GBDP is unlikely.
    13. Tippecanoe posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:51 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    If that's legitimate infield fly rule, then the rule needs adjustment. The intent of the rule is to prevent double plays on intentionally dropped pop-ups -- obviously impossible there, when the runner on first can play it a third of the way to second. And I root for the Cardinals.

    Beverage to The Ghost
    14. SoSH U at work posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:51 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    The purpose of the IFR is to prevent a fielder not catching it and turning a ground ball double play. So perhas it shouldn't be an IF if teh ball is so deep into the OF that a GBDP is unlikely.


    There's actually a mechanism in place for the offense to prevent the double play from ever happening (if the batter passes the runner on first, the ball is dead and the runners stay at their bases). There's really no reason for the IF fly to exist.

    But it does. And as long as it does, then I don't see that this call fit the bill (though I wouldn't have objected if the ump didn't call the IF fly either). It was deep enough to eschew it, but the SS could have caught it with a routine effort so calling it was defensible.

    15. Dale Sams posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:54 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    All things taken in consideration, while i, in the past, violently disagreed with the new playoff system...I marginally approve. With 162? tough, go home even though you were ###### by the vagaries of geographical location, being the worst part.

    But what can you do? 2 out of 3? That's just too long to wait for 'the real playoffs to start' Lower seed has to win 2? Too oddball. it is what it is. I don't want to remove divisions. I don't want to remove leagues. It's the best solution. Though, I'd be all for cutting back to 154 games.
    16. AT-AT at bat@AT&T posted on October 05, 2012 at 11:57 PM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    i thought the infield-fly rule was to "protect" runners from being doubled off by an intentionally dropped fly ball, which in this special case was not given. plus, the hand signal from the umps (2) came extremely late (not sure about voice obviously). not a good start for the one game wildcards (unless you love drama) and maybe MLB will learn from it and not let some clown proclaim afterwards "it just didn´t make sense" when it does, to baseball fans !
    17. ColonelTom posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:01 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I chatted with a very good, very experienced Little League ump about this rule a few weeks ago. He said that he'd been taught to call it on a shallow fly in the OF grass whenever the infielder can make the catch routinely while facing toward home plate. His explanation made perfect sense. If the infielder's back is to the infield, he presumably can't tell if the runners are running or tagging, so he can't "game" the situation by choosing to catch/drop the ball based on their position. If the fielder is facing the infield, he can see the runners and game the situation, so the rule is invoked to protect the runners.

    Kozma was under the ball with "ordinary effort," calling it, and facing the plate, so the call had to be made and was correct.
    18. Brian White posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:01 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I read the thread before I saw the call, so I figured the SS was racing after the ball, rather than meandering back under it as he was. While the call was made too late* and a little deeper than usual, the call itself was fine. That's a perfectly legitimate use of the infield fly rule.**


    Any play where the left fielder and shortstop could potentially collide kind of fails the definition of "ordinary effort". Also "infield".
    19. Mike A posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:03 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    After the ump in the 1991 WS explained that the Gant/Hrbek play was the right call, I oddly don't trust umpires to tell the truth in these matters.
    20. Dale Sams posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:03 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    *had*? No. It should be (not saying it is) It should be, can double up the runners with ordinary effort...which was not even remotely the case. They couldn't even think about getting *one* runner.
    21. ColonelTom posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:03 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    The "late" call was made as soon as an umpire determined that an infielder could make the play with ordinary effort - in this case, when Kozma camped under it and waved his arms. Technically speaking, the call could be made *after* the ball is caught or drops, though obviously that's a last resort if the umpire has blown the call and it results in a double or triple play.
    22. SoSH U at work posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:04 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I thought the infield-fly rule was to "protect" runners from being doubled off by an intentionally dropped fly ball, which in this special case was not given.


    You can't intentionally drop any ball in the air (letting it hit your glove and dropping it) in the infield with just a runner on first. You can let one hit the ground unimpeded, then try to double up the runner.
    23. Tippecanoe posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:07 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    "Ordinary effort" is a hazy term that is probably meant to allow for judgment. Which in this case was poor.
    24. Brian White posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:07 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    in this case, when Kozma camped under it and waved his arms.


    Kozma was never camped under it. He never actually reached the spot where the ball landed. He waved his arms, but he sure as hell wasn't camped.
    25. cardsfanboy  posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:08 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Any play where the left fielder and shortstop could potentially collide kind of fails the definition of "ordinary effort". Also "infield".


    That is my complaint, you see that ball dropped routinely on accident, so I don't think it should ever be considered a routine play(or ordinary effort or however you want to word it)

    I don't care how you try to justify that call, it was a bad call. It was a bad call. The umps figured in three plays in this game, one they were 100% right on (the runners interference) one they were wrong on, but it wasn't murderous(Calling timeout as the pitcher was in the wind up) and one that they were wrong on, and affected the very integrity of the game.
    26. MrMet33 posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:08 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    2nd place teams are lucky to be in the playoffs in the first place. I don't believe they deserve any more than a 1-game series. The previous system was a load of crap - there was no advantage to winning the division (one extra home game?). At least the wild card game makes the non-division winner earn it a little more. The Braves didn't deserve anything because they won more games than the Cardinals. It's like saying The Cardinals World Series ring in 2006 didn't count because they were a .500 team heading into the playoffs.
    27. SoSH U at work posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:09 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0


    Any play where the left fielder and shortstop could potentially collide kind of fails the definition of "ordinary effort". Also "infield".


    Is this particular aspect of the rule that you've made up position-specific? How about a play where the third baseman and the shortstop could potentially collide?

    It didn't take anything but ordinary effort for Kozma to catch that ball, no matter how many variables you want to throw into it. It was a routine pop up that he was slowly backing up to field. For some bizarre reason, he peeled off. That he failed to perform a rather simple task for an MLB shortstop doesn't make the effort required any more difficult.

    As for the IF portion, the IF fly rule is not limited to the IF. Never has been, for obvious reasons.
    28. ColonelTom posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:10 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Also "infield".


    Here is an excellent explanation of what happened and why the umps got it right. From that article:

    Rule 2.00 (Infield Fly) further specifies, "On the infield fly rule the umpire is to rule whether the ball could ordinarily have been handled by an infielder—not by some arbitrary limitation such as the grass, or the base lines. The umpire must rule also that a ball is an infield fly, even if handled by an outfielder, if, in the umpire’s judgment, the ball could have been as easily handled by an infielder."


    It not only could have been in the outfield, it could have been caught by an outfielder and still have been an infield fly.
    29. Mayor Blomberg posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:10 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    To put Friday's controversial play into context, in the past three seasons, there were six infield flies that were not caught in the majors, according to Baseball Info Solutions, the longest measured at 178 feet.

    Friday's infield fly was measured at 225 feet from home plate, according to Baseball Info Solutions.

    Per ESPN
    30. cardsfanboy  posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:10 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Kozma was never camped under it. He never actually reached the spot where the ball landed. He waved his arms, but he sure as hell wasn't camped.


    The only forgiveness for this play/call is if Kozma and the ump both say that the ump was very loud and Kozma claims that the ump calling infield fly rule changed his route to the ball. I probably wouldn't believe it, if it was said, but it's about the only real reason for not redoing the play or more accurately just loading the bases with one out and playing it out from there.
    31. cardsfanboy  posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:14 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    2nd place teams are lucky to be in the playoffs in the first place. I don't believe they deserve any more than a 1-game series. The previous system was a load of crap - there was no advantage to winning the division (one extra home game?). At least the wild card game makes the non-division winner earn it a little more. The Braves didn't deserve anything because they won more games than the Cardinals. It's like saying The Cardinals World Series ring in 2006 didn't count because they were a .500 team heading into the playoffs.


    Many people do try to say that the Cardinals world series doesn't count, or shouldn't count or it's the worse world series team of all time (note...with two weeks left in the season, the Cardinals had the second best record in the NL....they just stopped caring after that point)


    I agree, this system is much better than the previous system. I'm still hoping to expand by two teams, go to four divisions and eliminate the wild card altogether(It won't happen, I know, as at that point they will just have a couple of wild card teams anyway) but until then, this method is the best available while maintaining some advantages to winning the division.
    32. Brian White posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:14 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Kozma was backing up slowly to camp under the ball. For some bizarre reason, he peeled off.


    Slowly? Oh no, that wasn't slowly.

    Animated GIF of the play

    He was racing back at full speed, and slowed down because he thought Holliday was calling him off. Also note in that GIF that Kozma never actually reaches the point where the ball lands (again, see the point where he thinks Holliday is calling him off) - if he were to actually catch that ball, he'd have to be backpedaling pretty quickly.
    33. Brian White posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:17 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    The only forgiveness for this play/call is if Kozma and the ump both say that the ump was very loud and Kozma claims that the ump calling infield fly rule changed his route to the ball. I probably wouldn't believe it, if it was said, but it's about the only real reason for not redoing the play or more accurately just loading the bases with one out and playing it out from there.


    The GIF I linked to in #32 shows Kozma giving up on the ball before Holbrook signals for the infield fly rule. I suppose it's possible Holbrook yelled something before his signal, but I doubt it.
    34. Jolly Old St. Nick Done Jumped The Ship  posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:19 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    No more tomahawk chops for six months? I ain't complaining.
    35. SoSH U at work posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:20 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    He was racing back at full speed, and slowed down because he thought Holliday was calling him off.


    Full speed? As your gif clearly shows, he was pursuing it with a mix of side saddle/back pedal. Unless he's Kevin Reimer, a ballplayer chasing a fly ball at full speed doesn't use that method of pursuit.

    36. cardsfanboy  posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:22 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    The GIF I linked to in #32 shows Kozma giving up on the ball before Holbrook signals for the infield fly rule. I suppose it's possible Holbrook yelled something before his signal, but I doubt it.


    I do too.
    37. Brian White posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:23 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Full speed? As your gif clearly shows, he was pursuing it with a mix of side saddle/back pedal. Unless he's Kevin Reimer, a ballplayer chasing a fly ball at full speed doesn't use that method of pursuit.


    I don't consider a mix of full speed side saddle and very quick back pedal (the latter necessitated by a somewhat incorrect route to the ball) to be "ordinary effort". And it sure as heck ain't slow.
    38. SoSH U at work posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:24 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    The GIF I linked to in #32 shows Kozma giving up on the ball before Holbrook signals for the infield fly rule. I suppose it's possible Holbrook yelled something before his signal, but I doubt it.


    I do agree with you there. I don't know what the hell Kozma was thinking, but it didn't appear to be a reaction to Holbrook.
    39. Mike A posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:25 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Love how the ump calls the IF fly after Kozma starts running forward and away from the ball. Good grief.

    I read a quote where Kozma said he didn't hear anything, but I can't find it now. Maybe he redacted it, heh.

    I just wish Holbrook had the ***** to admit he botched the call.
    40. Ray (RDP)  posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:28 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Am I the only one on the planet who doesn't think it was a bad call? The SS is camped under it. The umpire signals infield fly. The SS peels off.

    The umpire is not supposed to predict that the SS who is camped under it really is unsure of whether he is going to catch it and is about to peel off.

    I'm open to the idea that I might be wrong here, but what if the umpire had _not_ called infield fly and the SS dropped it on purpose and they turned a DP?
    41. Brian White posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:30 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    The SS is camped under it. The umpire signals infield fly. The SS peels off.


    The first sentence is incorrect, and the second and third are in improper chronological order.
    42. SoSH U at work posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:30 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0


    I don't consider a mix of full speed side saddle and very quick back pedal (the latter necessitated by a somewhat incorrect route to the ball) to be "ordinary effort".


    Maybe for you and I. For an MLB shortstop, routine effort was all it took to catch this ball.

    And it sure as heck ain't slow.


    Compared to turning and running after a ball*, yes it is.

    * Which, itself, would constitute non-routine effort.

    If you want to claim that this was too deep for an IF fly call, I wouldn't object. I think it's right at the borderline, but I can definitely see that argument. But I don't see any way this play fails the routine effort part for major league ballplayers.

    Love how the ump calls the IF fly after Kozma starts running forward and away from the ball. Good grief.


    As an official (soccer, but the process is the same), I don't think this is an accurate description. I've found there is a gap is between when you decide to make the call and when you signal/call it. I believe that Holbrook determined it was an infield fly before Kozma started running forward, even if his arm gesture follows Kozma's change of heart. It looks odd, but I don't think there's anything untoward about it in practice.

    Am I the only one on the planet who doesn't think it was a bad call? The SS is camped under it. The umpire signals infield fly. The SS peels off.

    Am I the only one on the planet who doesn't think it was a bad call? The SS is camped under it. The umpire signals infield fly. The SS peels off.


    Jeez Ray, you are allowed to read the thread before posting. (-:
    43. Corn On Ty Cobb posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:30 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    It was a bad call, whatever. It happens. What's more appalling is Torre and Holbrook's complete refusal to admit they missed it.
    44. cardsfanboy  posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:30 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    I just wish Holbrook had the ***** to admit he botched the call.


    He really can't do that at least while the post season is going on. I mean he could if he really wanted to, but I don't see anyone doing that and letting the admit overshadow the rest of the series's(for a while) The call is going to overshadow the Cardinals/Nationals series as it stands. Although Bryce Harper is going to do his damndest to make the story about him (.429,.484,.750,1.234 career numbers vs the Cardinals.)
    45. Ray (RDP)  posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:35 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    #41, the SS _was_ camped under it. Maybe I have the chronology wrong, though.

    Is the problem that the call was late? That the ball was too deep? I don't really have a problem with either - Torre was right that it's a judgment call - but perhaps I'm wrong.

    I did expect to see something far more egregious when I clicked on the video, though.

    EDIT: Just re-watched it carefully. I do have the chronology wrong, but I don't see how that matters. The SS drifts back, camps under it, raises his arm that he's got it, and THEN the ump signals infield fly. Yes, by the time the ump signals infield fly the SS is peeling off, but that is not the ump's fault
    46. ColonelTom posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:35 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Ray nails it at #40.

    #42 - there's no provision in the rule for saying the ball's too deep for an infield fly. The rule says that if an infielder can catch the fly ball with ordinary effort, it's an infield fly no matter how deep or shallow the ball is, as long as it's fair.

    You can say that's a bad rule, but that's the rule, and Holbrook called it by the book.
    47. Brian White posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:37 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    #41, the SS _was_ camped under it.


    I linked to a GIF of the play in post 32. Look at it.

    Find the point where Kozma is farthest out. Then put your finger there. The ball lands beyond where you have placed your finger.
    48. Mike A posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:37 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    Never seen a IF fly call that deep. I'm not sure anyone has. And I disagree that Kozma was anywhere near camped. He was never camped because he never got to the ball. How can you be camped if you never get to where the ball lands?
    49. ColonelTom posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:38 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    The ball lands beyond where you have placed your finger.


    About three to five feet behind Kozma, about a second after he was standing there. He's about six feet tall, give or take. He's in position to make the play before he bails.
    50. Brian White posted on October 06, 2012 at 12:43 AM #  hit 0 | hit 0

    He's in position to make the play before he bails.


    Well, yeah. He can catch the ball, if he's backpedaling quickly enough. Whether or not the ball was catchable is not up for debate - Kozma can clearly catch it. The question is whether that's "ordinary effort" - I'd say no, given the distance he had to go.

    Page 1 of 6 pages  1 2 3 4 5 6 > 

    You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

     

    Braves Think Factory

    Login to Join (2 members)

    {/exp:tag:subscribed}

    Page rendered in 1.3610 seconds, 173 querie(s) executed