Just lost a couple brain cells reading that article.

And nowhere in the article is a reason why the author feels MLB should be ban catchers' use of nail polish. Idiocy.

At long last, someone with the courage to tackle this vital issue!

I don't think there's much harm in nail polish, but mascara is overused waaay to often. Just a little bit goes a long way and I just don't trust MLB catchers to know when to say when. Ban Mascara in MLB!

And nowhere in the article is a reason why the author feels MLB should be ban catchers' use of nail polish.

Because Freddy said so, that why!! I agree with him here:

why not allow the catchers to dye their gloves white or paint them flourescent orange to make them more visible to the pitcher.

Well, aside from the fact that the glove is pretty big and easy to see, sure, why not? I certainly have no problem with allowing catchers dye their gloves white or paint them fluorescent, though I'm not sure paint sticks to leather very well.

At first I was willing to give this guy the benefit of the doubt. Like maybe it was an assignment for his fourth grade class and his teacher encouraged him to submit it. Then I read this:

Freddy Sherman grew up in Philadelphia, which didn't make being a Los Angeles Dodgers fan easy. He has lived in Los Angeles for twenty years

Yikes! This is a grown man. Maybe there's a developmental disability.

After reading the entire article several times, I realize even I am qualified to be a Yahoo! Contributor

This is one of the few times I enjoyed reading the comments in a Yahoo column.

Maybe he's just a racist that doesn't want dark skinned catchers to be able to communicate with pitchers. (Sort of an Occam's Rancor interpretation...)

After reading the entire article several times, I realize even I am qualified to be a Yahoo! Contributor

You actually read this more than once? Why?

mascara is overused waaay to often

Cologne! Cologne is the real menace. Look, leaving aside the question of whether real men even wear cologne, all it takes is 2-3 drops in your chestal region.

We are all Yahoo! Contributors now.

Other articles by Freddie Sherman include "Top 5 Injured Dodgers," an Oakland Raiders and a San Diego Chargers Father's Day gift guide, "5 Future Dodgers Hall of Famers" including Chan Ho Park, and an interview with the LA Sparks about the Lakers loss to the Thunder. He makes up for quality with quanity. This is Bleacher Report stuff.

You actually read this more than once? Why?

I incorrectly assumed I had missed an intelligent argument somewhere. Also, I'm an extreme masochist.

mascara is overused waaay to often. Just a little bit goes a long way and I just don't trust MLB catchers to know when to say when.

No offense, but it seems like you don't follow the sport very closely. It's closers who have makeup.

MLB should ban nail polish that clashes with the catcher's uniform color. Anything that makes a nice complement should be fine.

They should ban fingers altogether. Suck it, Alfonseca!

And nowhere in the article is a reason why the author feels MLB should be ban catchers' use of nail polish.

It actually directly says why the author feels that; it even explictly says that the listed reason is why the author feels that:

I think it should be against the rules, as why not allow the catchers to dye their gloves white or paint them flourescent orange to make them more visible to the pitcher.

The reason sure seems dumb to me -- in fact a non sequitur -- but it is his reason nonetheless.

why not allow the catchers to dye their gloves white or paint them flourescent orange

Actually, I seem to recall that there was a time when some catchers had gloves with a brighter color around the edges of the mitt, to emphasize the target. Does anyone still do that, or was it outlawed?

Ban Mascara in MLB!

Isn't he already dead? Oh, no, that was Steve-O.

This is one of the few times I enjoyed reading the comments in a Yahoo column.

Not even this can make me want to do that.

MLB should ban nail polish that clashes with the catcher's uniform color. Anything that makes a nice complement should be fine.

If this were the NFL, catchers would get fined for wearing the wrong shade of polish, or having too many coats.

injured Los Angeles Dodgers star Mark Ellis

?

injured Los Angeles Dodgers star Mark Ellis


?

Active, 4000-5000 PA, Sorted by rWAR

Okay? He's a good player; I never disputed that. I guess I just have a higher threshold for "star."

This is one of the few times I enjoyed reading the comments in a Yahoo column.

The best comments are by RAMP:

Not worth commenting on this stupid article.

and by Christopher Shelton:

I think the umpires should be required to wear monocles, the shortstop should get a special propeller beanie, and all the base runners should have LEDs in their shoes that match the team colors.

Finally a man with some sense!

MLB should ban nail polish that clashes with the catcher's uniform color. Anything that makes a nice complement should be fine.

Finally the proper take on this issue, but definitely no icky glitter polish.

Players should wear Disco Stu platform heels--and those fish better be alive.

Not even this can make me want to do that.

It's amazing, none of them agree with him.

The best comments are by RAMP:

I also enjoyed:

Did Chris Chase die and come back as Freddy Sherman?

From another piece by this guy:

Each Friday night home game at Dodger Stadium features post-game Friday Night Fireworks and after this game the fireworks will be launched to Linkin Park music, which actually sounds like a lot of fun.

And you should win things by watching!

Very dumb article, but a couple of related points:

1. I believe Tim McCarver, everyone's favorite, may have been the first catcher to use nail polish on his nails. I believe he started it because Bob Gibson couldn't see the signs, and Gibson refused to wear his glasses while pitching.

2.

why not allow the catchers to dye their gloves white or paint them flourescent orange


Actually, I seem to recall that there was a time when some catchers had gloves with a brighter color around the edges of the mitt, to emphasize the target. Does anyone still do that, or was it outlawed?

Jerry Grote painted the edges/boarders of his mitt in bright orange. I think he may have only used it when Seaver was pitching, but maybe he used it all the time for a few years. I don't remember anyone else trying it.

The black catcher's mitt with bright orange lining on the inside was a thing in the 80s. It's one of the things I most remember about Lance Parrish with the Tigers.

As with most catching innovations of the 1970s, I associate that orange outline with Steve Yeager of Sherman's beloved Dodgers. And, according to a SABR piece on the evolution of catcher equipment, the orange stripe was in fact introduced by Al Campanis.

Nuke LaLoosh can still wear Annie's frilly panties though, right?

the orange stripe was in fact introduced by Al Campanis.

Racist!

This is off topic but generally relates to rules and I don't know where to ask it, so...

Situation in my softball game last night. Pretend we're playing under major league rules. What is the answer here?

Runners on first and second, no outs. The batter hits a squib down the first base line that looks like it's going foul. But we (the fielders) wait on the ball and it goes fair. The batter hasn't run, so the 1B picks the ball up in fair ground and steps on first. Ump calls the batter out. So far so good.

Now: the runners on first and second haven't moved. I am telling the 1B to tag them, but he doesn't listen. Instead he goes over to third base and steps on third. Looks at the ump, who stares back at him motionless. This is because, to my way of thinking, the runners are no longer "forced." (The force play is off and the runners must be tagged.) But at the same time, I think, the runners are not entitled to stay on their bases. They are supposed to advance (they have to, right? it was a ground ball) -- it's just that the fielders have to actually tag them to get them out. We didn't tag them, so the ump allowed them to stay on first and second without calling them out.

After the inning I went over to the ump and he said, yes, had you guys tagged them, I'd have called them out.

I believe the ump is correct, and that my reading of the play above is correct.

1) Am I right about this? And was the ump right?

2) What is the official rule that speaks to this?

Thanks...

Ray-you are correct. As soon as the force play is made on the batter, the force on the other runners no longer exists, and they must be tagged. They can proceed at their own risk, or return to their previous base. I've had to make the same call as a kickball ref.

But at the same time, I think, the runners are not entitled to stay on their bases.

They are entitled to those original bases once you remove the force.

Think of it this way, why would you *have* to tag them if they *had* to advance?

Ray - Foghron's right. The most famous example of this situation that I know of came in Game Seven of the 1960 World Series.

With one out and runners on the corners Berra grounded to first. As I have read it over the years the first baseman stepped on the bag then went to throw to second but Mantle dove back to first. He was safe and the tying run scored. A DP would have ended the series and Mazeroski's HOF chances.

t9 8-9 1 1-3 3,(2-0) RO NYY Y. Berra H. Haddix -6% 57% Groundout: 1B unassisted; McDougald Scores; Mantle stays at 1B

Think of the wording itself. You have removed the "force", thus the base runner is not "forced" to go anywhere.

There was an example of this in "So You Think You Know Baseball." In that I think the situation was a grounder to first, the runner is standing on first, & the fielder tags the runner then tags the bag. In that case, it's a double play. If the fielder tags the bag first, the runner is safe.

Any one click through to this:

Might be worse than the original article.

Thanks to all. I stand corrected.

After reading the entire article several times, I realize even I am qualified to be a Yahoo! Contributor

Wait a sec: This wasn't a Joel Sherman piece?

Might be worse than the original article.

I don't think you needed the "might be."

The way to think of this is that if, say, the runner on second starts for third, the throw goes to third but beats him so badly that he stops and gets in a run down - he's allowed to go back to 2nd if the rundown is misplayed. Unless the guy on first beats him there.

The way to think of this is that if, say, the runner on second starts for third, the throw goes to third but beats him so badly that he stops and gets in a run down - he's allowed to go back to 2nd if the rundown is misplayed. Unless the guy on first beats him there.

In this case, however, it's the guy from first who would be out if they're both on second (and both tagged).

If a runner tries to advance on a dropped infield-fly-rule popup, I assume there is no force even if he leaves the base before the ball is dropped (i.e. he was not 'tagging up'), correct?

If a runner tries to advance on a dropped infield-fly-rule popup, I assume there is no force even if he leaves the base before the ball is dropped (i.e. he was not 'tagging up'), correct?

Correct. He can leave whenever he feels like it and return to the base from which he came at will. But, if it is caught, he must get back to the bag before the ball gets there.

nate, i don't have the rule book in front of me, but i think you are right. but since if the catch is made, the runner can be thrown out as if he didn't tag up on a fly ball, it's not a good move. you'd probably be benched or fined by your manager if you were a major leaguer.

edit, coke to sosh.

OK, so can an outfielder catch an infield fly ball?