Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Angels’ Josh Hamilton disputes ‘terrible’ replay review ruling

That replay took so long…by the time they came back Spencer Gordon Bennet’s lost film “Play Ball” was discovered!

Josh Hamilton injured his left thumb sliding head-first into first base Tuesday night, but that didn’t prevent the Angels left fielder from giving Major League Baseball two thumbs down to an instant-replay ruling in the fifth inning of the Angels’ 5-3 loss to the Seattle Mariners.

With a runner on second and one out, Corey Hart lofted a fly ball to deep left that Hamilton appeared to catch above his head and pull toward his body, but the ball squirted out on the glove-to-hand transfer and fell to the ground.

Third-base umpire Seth Buckminster initially ruled Hart out, but Seattle Manager Lloyd McClendon challenged, and after a 2-minute, 51-second replay review, the call was overturned.

“C’mon MLB, that’s terrible, and you can quote me on that,” Hamilton said. “You can see on the replay that I catch the ball and I come down with it [before the ball comes out]. I always flip the ball out of my glove. I never reach in and grab it.”

Repoz Posted: April 09, 2014 at 10:24 AM | 55 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: nfl

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.

   1. bobm Posted: April 09, 2014 at 11:26 AM (#4682850)
If only MLB had a system to review the replay review rulings...
   2. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 09, 2014 at 11:29 AM (#4682853)
If only MLB had a system to review the replay review rulings...


They do, but managers get only 1 challenge per week.
   3. Random Transaction Generator Posted: April 09, 2014 at 11:35 AM (#4682859)
“I always flip the ball out of my glove. I never reach in and grab it.”


Well, maybe now you will!
   4. T.J. Posted: April 09, 2014 at 11:35 AM (#4682860)
I literally fell asleep during the review process, so I didn't hear the specific rule involved, but it certainly appeared to me that he made the catch cleanly and dropped it only when transferring the ball to throw it back in to the infield. Were the umps correct in ruling it a dropped fly? Is Scioscia correct when he says “The catch isn’t completed until the ball is in the bare hand. That’s in the rule book”?
   5. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 09, 2014 at 11:41 AM (#4682866)
The player has to "voluntarily" remove or attempt to remove the ball from his glove. What is voluntarily is one of the most subjective judgements in the game.
   6. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 09, 2014 at 11:42 AM (#4682868)
I literally fell asleep during the review process, so I didn't hear the specific rule involved, but it certainly appeared to me that he made the catch cleanly and dropped it only when transferring the ball to throw it back in to the infield. Were the umps correct in ruling it a dropped fly? Is Scioscia correct when he says “The catch isn’t completed until the ball is in the bare hand. That’s in the rule book”?


It's come up a couple of times in Red Sox games this year on DP pivots. Apparently they've created a stricter standard this year for when the ball is being transferred from glove to hand. As it has been called in the past the act of moving the ball from the glove to the hand was sufficient to prove control, now you have to successful transfer the ball from glove to hand it seems. The Rangers lost an out the other night when Andrus didn't successfully transfer the ball.
   7. dave h Posted: April 09, 2014 at 11:47 AM (#4682882)
If Scoscia were right, then you would never have a "dropped on the transfer" ruling - that happens before the ball is in the bare hand. From the definitions in the MLB rulebook:

"A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of
a ball in flight and firmly holding it.... In establishing the validity of
the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control
of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional. If the fielder has
made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch,
the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught."

He makes the catch and brings his glove down with the ball in it, then releases the ball intentionally to move it to his hand. Pretty clearly awful call, even worse that it was on replay.

   8. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 09, 2014 at 11:50 AM (#4682888)




MLB official rules

A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of a ball in flight and firmly holding it; providing he does not use his cap, protector, pocket or any other part of his uniform in getting possession. It is not a catch, however, if simultaneously or immediately following his contact with the ball, he collides with a player, or with a wall, or if he falls down, and as a result of such collision or falling, drops the ball. It is not a catch if a fielder touches a fly ball which then hits a member of the offensive team or an umpire and then is caught by another defensive player. If the fielder has made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch, the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught. In establishing the validity of the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional.
   9. Rants Mulliniks Posted: April 09, 2014 at 11:53 AM (#4682890)
Gregg Zaun made a good point last night after the Jays/Astros game. Houston asked for a review of a play at the plate, and luckily (for us Jays fans mainly) it was upheld as an out. He said that before we know it, almost every play at the plate will be reviewed, based on the premise that the catcher blocked the base path. He's probably right, and it is going to suck.
   10. jmurph Posted: April 09, 2014 at 12:03 PM (#4682896)
Is Scioscia correct when he says “The catch isn’t completed until the ball is in the bare hand. That’s in the rule book”?


My understanding is that you have to make a football move. And the goal-line extends to infinity.

Pretty straight forward, really.
   11. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 12:09 PM (#4682903)
My understanding is that you have to make a football move. And the goal-line extends to infinity.

So, if you tunnel under the goal line, that's still a TD?

That would awesome. The home team could build a hidden tunnel from midfield to the end-zone.
   12. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: April 09, 2014 at 12:14 PM (#4682907)
And the goal-line extends to infinity.


But there are different rules governing the first-down and other boundary lines.

   13. charityslave is thinking about baseball Posted: April 09, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4682908)
It must have been Angel Hernadez's night in the replay booth. That call was awfull (as was the Andrus call earlier this week). If they are indeed tightening up the "on the transfer" calls, then they need to change the rule, because both Andrus and (especially) Hamilton had complete control of the ball and the drop was when they were intentionally transitioning to a throwing maneuver.
   14. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 09, 2014 at 12:17 PM (#4682909)
It was a terrible call and a textbook example of inventing new "rules" because of the existence of replay.
   15. Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq. Posted: April 09, 2014 at 12:19 PM (#4682910)
That would awesome. The home team could build a hidden tunnel from midfield to the end-zone.


Tunnel/slide.
   16. jmurph Posted: April 09, 2014 at 12:23 PM (#4682913)
But there are different rules governing the first-down and other boundary lines.


Obviously! Totally different lines, with different widths!

So, if you tunnel under the goal line, that's still a TD?


Snapper, that's the kind of creative thinking that will get you hired in the NFL.
   17. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: April 09, 2014 at 12:49 PM (#4682937)
Ben Zobrist was similarly boned on a play at second against the Royals last night. These idiots are apparently interpreting the rule as "the fielder must successfully remove the ball from his glove and demonstrate control with his bare hand before dropping it."
   18. Athletic Supporter can feel the slow rot Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:03 PM (#4682951)
Ben Zobrist was similarly boned on a play at second against the Royals last night. These idiots are apparently interpreting the rule as "the fielder must successfully remove the ball from his glove and demonstrate control with his bare hand before dropping it."


This is bad news for Jim Abbott's comeback.
   19. Ziggy Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:06 PM (#4682953)
"voluntary and intentional"

Whoa, figuring this one out might take a while. *Reaches for Anscombe*
   20. Sunday silence Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:13 PM (#4682955)
the rule is more liberal for infielders (at least that's how I've heard it) hence the last second about losing the ball when you throw it. THey understand that IF may sometimes lose control when they transfer the ball for the throw. WIth OF it is supposed to be a little stricter if he loses the ball when his throwing hand gets it he will probably not get credit for the catch.

It is not a good idea to flip the ball out of your glove like Hamilton says he does. Especially an OF.
   21. Tulo's Fishy Mullet (mrams) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:13 PM (#4682957)
I didn't fall asleep during this review, and like the announcers, was totally shocked (sap I am) that this was overturned. The ###### hand wringing over obsessions to 'get it right' simply ruins the game watching experience of sport.
   22. Rusty Priske Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:23 PM (#4682969)
Martinez and Tabler on the Jays' broadcasts seem to not understand the new rule at all for home plate calls.

They keep SAYING that the runner needs to have a clear path to the palte and then they keep saying that the runenr doesn't, when he does.

They seem to think that means the catcher cannot stand anywhere between the runner and the plate while the umpires (based on calls that they are making) are saying that a clear path means they have to have a... well, clear path... to the plate.

They may sound odd, but in the game last night, as the cameras CLEARLY showed that the runner (Hoes?) had fully half the plate to slide into and there was nothing stopping him from doing so, they were saying that Kratz (right?) was blocking the plate because he was in fron to fit at all.

Someone should let them know that they are misreading the rule.
   23. dr. scott Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:27 PM (#4682976)
What is it with people sliding into first base this season. Ive seen it nearly three times, and every single time it clearly slowed them down to slide. Puig's was the worst. its like they are thinking, "Hmm, I'm going really fast, and need to slow down to make it a closer play to makes the fans excite."
   24. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:29 PM (#4682981)
And the goal-line extends to infinity.

Why do players dive for the pylon then? You see it often, a player is going out of bounds and reaches the ball to make sure it goes inside the pylon. If the goal line extends, then it just has to cross the goal line before they are officially out of bounds, which doesn't happen until part of their body touches the ground.
   25. bunyon Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:31 PM (#4682982)
The way I understand it is that if you hit the pylon with the ball it's a TD, no questions asked. Sure, the ball going inside the pylon is technically a TD as well but it requires a lot more judgement. Basically, if the ball or the arm with the ball hits the pylon, it's clear.
   26. Shredder Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:37 PM (#4682991)
If Scoscia were right, then you would never have a "dropped on the transfer" ruling - that happens before the ball is in the bare hand. From the definitions in the MLB rulebook:

"A CATCH is the act of a fielder in getting secure possession in his hand or glove of
a ball in flight and firmly holding it.... In establishing the validity of
the catch, the fielder shall hold the ball long enough to prove that he has complete control
of the ball and that his release of the ball is voluntary and intentional. If the fielder has
made the catch and drops the ball while in the act of making a throw following the catch,
the ball shall be adjudged to have been caught."
Is this something the Angels could protest? If the umpires came back to Scioscia and told him that "the catch isn't completed until the ball is in the bare hand - that's in the rulebook", and it turns out that's not in the rule book (which it isn't), then can't the Angels protest a misinterpretation/misapplication of the rules? It sounds like the umpires didn't say he never made the catch, but that he didn't officially make a catch because he didn't complete the transfer. But completing the transfer isn't the rule. They didn't make a judgment call, they just got the rule wrong. I'm not saying they should protest, I'm just wondering if they could have.
   27. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:40 PM (#4682996)

Why do players dive for the pylon then? You see it often, a player is going out of bounds and reaches the ball to make sure it goes inside the pylon. If the goal line extends, then it just has to cross the goal line before they are officially out of bounds, which doesn't happen until part of their body touches the ground.


The goal line only extends vertically, not horizontally. So the ball has to go inside (or on, as bunyon notes) the pylon, regardless whether the body is out of bounds.

The NFL's boundary rules are not exactly consistent.

   28. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:42 PM (#4683001)
Is this something the Angels could protest? If the umpires came back to Scioscia and told him that "the catch isn't completed until the ball is in the bare hand - that's in the rulebook", and it turns out that's not in the rule book (which it isn't), then can't the Angels protest a misinterpretation/misapplication of the rules? It sounds like the umpires didn't say he never made the catch, but that he didn't officially make a catch because he didn't complete the transfer. But completing the transfer isn't the rule. They didn't make a judgment call, they just got the rule wrong. I'm not saying they should protest, I'm just wondering if they could have.


Whether it would have gotten upheld is another matter, but it seems reasonable grounds for a protest.
   29. just plain joe Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:46 PM (#4683002)
The ###### hand wringing over obsessions to 'get it right' simply ruins the game watching experience of sport.


Yes, yes, one thousand times yes. I have spent much time over the past few weeks watching college basketball. I don't think I saw one game where the officials didn't have to huddle around a monitor several times for minutes at a time. This not only destroys the natural flow of the game, it also provides teams with a free time out. I would far rather experience a couple of blown calls than endure 3-4 minutes of stoppage every time there is a close decision. I have only watched a little baseball so far this season but I have seen enough of the replay experience to not like that either. Let the officials make the call and then move on.
   30. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:50 PM (#4683008)
Is this something the Angels could protest?


Have they? If they haven't, it's too late.
   31. Shredder Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:51 PM (#4683010)
I don't think I saw one game where the officials didn't have to huddle around a monitor several times for minutes at a time.
I don't mind it for three pointers, which are usually done during TV breaks, but I don't care for the rule that says for 38 minutes, we're going to rely on the official timer hearing and reacting to the referee's whistle to keep the proper time, but for two minutes, we will review every critical play to make sure an extra tenth of a second doesn't drip off the clock. I kinda feel like Wisconsin got screwed on this against Kentucky. I assumed they were reviewing the clock, though maybe they were reviewing whether the guy was behind the line (which wasn't even close), but the Wiscy guy gets fouled shooting a three, then has to wait two minutes before shooting his free throws. No need to wasted a timeout icing the shooter when the refs are happy to do it for you.
   32. Shredder Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:52 PM (#4683011)
Have they? If they haven't, it's too late.
I meant could have protested. I don't mean they could do it now.
   33. Danny Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:53 PM (#4683013)
Kurt Suzuki just caught a foul-tip with two strikes and then dropped the ball trying to transfer it to his hand. The ump initially said it was not a strike, but they just reversed the call after the umpires conferenced. They're still discussing.
   34. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:56 PM (#4683018)
It wasn't enough for MLB to embrace NFL-style replay, they had apparently had to wrap their arms around the NFL's definition of catch at the same time. Brilliant.

I still think both leagues would be advised to stick a 9-year-old boy in the booth and ask him "Did he catch that." You'll get the right answer that way.



   35. Dale Sams Posted: April 09, 2014 at 01:59 PM (#4683021)
OH FFS. A catch is a catch and has been for over 100 years. If anything IR should HELP establish that not hinder it.

As for sliding head-first. Hasn't almost every player that's done it this year been injured?
   36. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: April 09, 2014 at 02:05 PM (#4683024)
It wasn't enough for MLB to embrace NFL-style replay, they had apparently had to wrap their arms around the NFL's definition of catch at the same time. Brilliant.

Before this year, I doubt McClendon even comes out of the dugout to inquire about the play. He definitely doesn't argue.

Yet with replay, he gets the call overturned. Absurd on its face.
   37. T.J. Posted: April 09, 2014 at 02:11 PM (#4683035)
I don't think I saw one game where the officials didn't have to huddle around a monitor several times for minutes at a time. This not only destroys the natural flow of the game...

... it can retroactively end the game.

We Tar Heel fans say "Amen."

But I don't blame the loss on the refs. Jackson Simmons should have called a timeout after the made free throw. At the very least, Nate Britt should have called a time out as soon as he caught the inbounds pass.
   38. jmurph Posted: April 09, 2014 at 02:12 PM (#4683036)
No no, I assure you the NFL goal line rules are much dumber than that. I found this quick quote the Chicago Tribune:

Whenever the ball carrier dives for the end zone and any part of his body passes over the pylon before he touches anything out-of-bounds, it is a touchdown, regardless of where the ball is. If the runner goes out-of-bounds short of the pylon and the ball passes over the pylon before the runner lands out-of-bounds, it is also a touchdown. The goal line plane actually extends beyond the sideline and theoretically "extends around the world." In my opinion, this rule exists to make the game more exciting and more interesting in goal line situations. -- Jerry Markbreit - NFL Referee


URL: http://able2know.org/topic/16749-3
   39. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: April 09, 2014 at 02:27 PM (#4683052)
Whenever the ball carrier dives for the end zone and any part of his body passes over the pylon before he touches anything out-of-bounds, it is a touchdown, regardless of where the ball is. If the runner goes out-of-bounds short of the pylon and the ball passes over the pylon before the runner lands out-of-bounds, it is also a touchdown. The goal line plane actually extends beyond the sideline and theoretically "extends around the world." In my opinion, this rule exists to make the game more exciting and more interesting in goal line situations. -- Jerry Markbreit - NFL Referee


That is even more bizarre than I realized, particularly the "any part of his body" aspect. But it's also kind of inconsistent with itself. If the goal line extends around the world, then the pylon doesn't matter, other than as a visual aid.

We Tar Heel fans say "Amen."


I didn't think they'd just end it like that (after all, you can argue the player's actions are dictated by what's on the clock). I thought they might take a few tenths off, but I was surprised they said, "Game Over."
   40. Greg Pope thinks the Cubs are reeking havoc Posted: April 09, 2014 at 02:32 PM (#4683057)
Ah yes, the "extends around the world" sounds very familiar to me. If the quoted part is correct, then there's no reason at all to reach for the pylon. Reach out as far as you can towards the plane.
   41. jmurph Posted: April 09, 2014 at 02:37 PM (#4683060)
The phrasing from the actual rule book is less clear, unsurprisingly. It appears some part of something must cross over the pylon, or the human must touch in-bounds in the end zone (even if the ball is out of bounds). But again, totally unclear, and totally convoluted.

My favorite part of the "must make a football move" thing is this hypothetical: receiver catches the ball, holds it for 20, 30 seconds, untouched, without moving at all (i.e. no football move), then drops the ball. Incomplete? Fumble? Is there a time limit on the football move?
   42. base ball chick Posted: April 09, 2014 at 02:43 PM (#4683070)
why DO runners dive headfirst into first base? i can't see how it would help because they are almost never gonna be TAGGED.
   43. Robert in Manhattan Beach Posted: April 09, 2014 at 03:00 PM (#4683095)
I don't know. It only helps if the throw is up the line and you might get tagged. But that's pretty hard to assess running full speed down the line. It's all for show.
   44. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 03:10 PM (#4683112)

Ah yes, the "extends around the world" sounds very familiar to me. If the quoted part is correct, then there's no reason at all to reach for the pylon. Reach out as far as you can towards the plane.


I think most players are simply trying to stretch towards the goal line, not the pylon. If you are running straight down the sideline then the natural thing will be to dive towards the corner of the end zone, over the pylon. If you are running from the middle of the field towards the sideline then a dive towards the end zone will naturally take you over the corner of the end zone, again over the pylon. If the angle is such that the body goes out before the goal line then the arm can be extended toward the end zone, over the pylon. Nothing special about the pylon itself, it's just the natural place to try and get into the end zone.
   45. BDC Posted: April 09, 2014 at 03:12 PM (#4683117)
The goal line plane actually extends beyond the sideline and theoretically "extends around the world."

That explains why Richard Sherman tackled me as I was walking across the parking lot this morning.
   46. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: April 09, 2014 at 03:13 PM (#4683118)
That is even more bizarre than I realized, particularly the "any part of his body" aspect. But it's also kind of inconsistent with itself. If the goal line extends around the world, then the pylon doesn't matter, other than as a visual aid.

The rule makes no sense, but as written the pylon does matter. If a player dives out of bounds at an angle from the three, reaching the ball beyond the extended plane, he hasn't scored because he was no longer established inside the boundary when the ball crossed. Whereas a guy who goes tippy-toe inside the pylon with the ball in his outside hand, so that it crosses the plane outside the boundary, has scored.

What a player diving for the pylon should do is keep the ball in his outside hand while reaching for the pylon with the inside hand, giving himself all the benefits of the extended plane while eliminating the fumble-for-a-touchback risk.


It's all for show.

It's not done for show, it's done because they think it gets them there faster. And it would, if they did it properly -- by reaching the bag with the dive instead of decelerating on the ground for several feet.
   47. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 09, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4683123)
why DO runners dive headfirst into first base? i can't see how it would help because they are almost never gonna be TAGGED.


Because it "feels" faster. It's not faster but it feels like it should be. You'd think professional athletes who have presumably been told repeatedly not to do it would manage to avoid doing it but...
   48. A New Leaf (Black Hawk Reign of Terror) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 03:15 PM (#4683124)
If this rule was correctly applied to the Hamilton play, the rule is simply wrong and needs to be rewritten immediately. There is no way anyone intended for that play to not be governed as a catch.
   49. jmurph Posted: April 09, 2014 at 03:17 PM (#4683125)
Well to bring it back around full circle, if MLB would make the logical change of extending first base upwards into infinity, then diving headfirst would help.
   50. jacksone (AKA It's OK...) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 03:31 PM (#4683138)
If a player dives out of bounds at an angle from the three, reaching the ball beyond the extended plane, he hasn't scored because he was no longer established inside the boundary when the ball crossed.


A player is still in the field of play until he establishes himself out of bounds. So if someone dives from the three, at an angle, and the ball crosses the hypothetical extended goal line while the player is in the air, then it's a touchdown.

It's just rather hard to do, first, the player has to dive over 9' horizontally, typically from a suboptimal launching point, and more importantly, if they are diving from the three it's because they are about the be hit, probably rather hard, by someone tying to prevent them from covering the needed three yards.
   51. Benji Gil Gamesh Rises Posted: April 09, 2014 at 04:10 PM (#4683210)
The "any part of the body" thing doesn't make any sense to me.

How does that possibly square with a normal entirely in-bounds play when the determination is always whether or not the *ball* has broken the plane, not the helmet or shoulder or knee or whatever. (Unless I have missed something new in the rules on that front.)
   52. Gaelan Posted: April 09, 2014 at 04:21 PM (#4683239)
It was a terrible call and a textbook example of inventing new "rules" because of the existence of replay.


Who could have ever predicted this would happen?

It is time for the advocates of instant replay to admit that are not competent to have opinions on anything, ever.

If this rule was correctly applied to the Hamilton play, the rule is simply wrong and needs to be rewritten immediately. There is no way anyone intended for that play to not be governed as a catch.


You saw the Calvin Johnson play, right? This is exactly what they intend. This is the price of instant replay. It is the poisoned chalice.
   53. A New Leaf (Black Hawk Reign of Terror) Posted: April 09, 2014 at 05:31 PM (#4683325)
There is nothing inherent in replay that leads to this rule being rewritten.
   54. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: April 09, 2014 at 06:24 PM (#4683368)
If this rule was correctly applied to the Hamilton play, the rule is simply wrong and needs to be rewritten immediately. There is no way anyone intended for that play to not be governed as a catch


Exact same play happened in today's Indians game. OF caught the ball on the run, took two steps, bumped into the OF fence, turned around and lost the grip while setting his feet for the throw back to the infield. The ball never came out of the glove in his bare hand. Umps called it safe on the field. Play was reviewed. Umps called it safe on review. This is MLB's apparent new interpretation of that rule. It's actually a pretty huge change from status quo.
   55. dr. scott Posted: April 09, 2014 at 06:44 PM (#4683385)
it's done because they think it gets them there faster. And it would, if they did it properly -- by reaching the bag with the dive instead of decelerating on the ground for several feet.


Exactly, but there is so little margin for error between slightly faster and a hell of a lot slower. If you go slightly past the front of the bag you have not gained much, if you don't jump right even hitting the edge of the back you might not gain anything, and if you land before the bag you loose tons of time. And on top of that... all the thumb casts.

that being said i was in my local bar and was wondering aloud why Puig thought decelerating rapidly before getting to first was a good idea, and i heard one patron mumble "Clearly that guy (me) never played ball". Which is true...

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogA’s lose Triple-A Sacramento affiliate
(60 - 4:28am, Sep 17)
Last: Bhaakon

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - September 2014
(264 - 4:00am, Sep 17)
Last: Moses Taylor World Re-Tour 2.0: Warszawa

NewsblogBryan Cranston’s One-Man Baseball Play Inspired By ‘Looney Tunes’ Is Incredible
(22 - 3:49am, Sep 17)
Last: Toothless

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-16-2014
(113 - 2:58am, Sep 17)
Last: TerpNats

Hall of Merit2015 Hall of Merit Ballot Discussion
(27 - 2:53am, Sep 17)
Last: Ardo

NewsblogDave Kreiger: New Baseball Hall of Fame voting rules
(44 - 1:17am, Sep 17)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogPedro pens a letter to Clayton Kershaw
(15 - 12:42am, Sep 17)
Last: Textbook Editor

NewsblogNew approach on offense has Pirates in playoff contention this season
(4 - 12:24am, Sep 17)
Last: Sunday silence

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread, September 2014
(249 - 11:58pm, Sep 16)
Last: The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB)

NewsblogSteven Matz, other top minor league Mets to be honored at Citi Field on Monday
(22 - 11:57pm, Sep 16)
Last: billyshears

NewsblogJohnny Cueto shuts down the Cardinals, lowers ERA to 2.15
(26 - 11:51pm, Sep 16)
Last: Srul Itza

NewsblogVox.com: Major League Baseball’s human-trafficking problem
(7 - 10:29pm, Sep 16)
Last: The Clarence Thomas of BBTF (scott)

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 9-16-2014
(26 - 10:01pm, Sep 16)
Last: bobm

NewsblogLonestarball: Jonathan Papelbon suspended for 7 games
(13 - 9:51pm, Sep 16)
Last: Famous Original Joe C

NewsblogToronto Blue Jays’ Marcus Stroman gets no defence from his manager after nearly hitting a batter in the head
(22 - 9:27pm, Sep 16)
Last: Random Transaction Generator

Page rendered in 0.6085 seconds
52 querie(s) executed