If that were as hard as Aybar can turn to his left, he wouldn't be a major league baseball player. He wasn't taking seriously the threat of Pierzynski running into him. On that play the Rays looked like a well-practiced Little League team - they could execute the throws without screwing up or having an empty base, but they weren't actually making much progress at tagging Pierzynski until he fell down. Even two throws is one throw too many, and this is one of the reasons why. Aybar looks like he has no interest whatsoever in making the tag.

As for blame, this is similar to a fielder botching a ground ball, recovering just in time to throw out a runner by a split second, and the umpire missing the call. Yes, the umpire made a bad call, in this case not realizing that there was virtually no contact. There was no reason to make the play that close however. Hopefully you acknowledge that if Pierzynski had been able to get more to the outfield side and make some real contact, still in the baseline, it would have been obstruction. Since he did graze him, that's pretty much by definition "close".

Eddings dunderheadness deserves the wrath of the Shredders of the world, but it doesn't mean Paul was without fault.

Actually, it does. Paul did nothing wrong. He caught it. He knew he caught it. I bet you won't find one catcher in professional baseball who doesn't know the difference, based on the way the ball feels when going into the mitt, whether or not he's caught it on the fly or on the bounce.

And, like Smiling Joe said, Eddings signaled out. He made the same motion and call he had made on every other strikeout. Earlier in the game, when a third strike had hit the dirt, he waited, watched, and didn't make the out signal until the batter had been tagged. Then he went on TV and lied about it, repeatedly. That play was 100% Doug Eddings' fault.

No, it was a just ball Paul caught inches above the ground. Catchers routinely slap the tag on the guy in that situation.

No, they don't. They routinely tag guys on balls that hit the dirt. That ball didn't, and Paul knew that it didn't. That's why McCarver had his back (and I HATE McCarver). They don't routinely tag guys on balls they catch on the fly.

One thing to watch is how often catchers take balls out of play when they hit dirt on a routine pitch. There are a lot of pitches where it's hard to tell by the naked eye whether the ball hit the dirt or not. Catchers routinely hand balls to the ump when they hit the dirt, and toss them back to the mound when they don't. They do this because they can tell the difference. I'd imagine that when you've caught about 100,000 pitches in your career, you probably get used to the difference.

Actually, it does. Paul did nothing wrong. He caught it. He knew he caught it. I bet you won't find one catcher in professional baseball who doesn't know the difference, based on the way the ball feels when going into the mitt, whether or not he's caught it on the fly or on the bounce.

The fact Paul knows whether he caught is is not the same as what the ump knows. That's why catchers routinely tag the guy on a throw that's near the dirt.

Edit since your post came first: We'll just disagree there Shredder. I've seen a lot of catchers slap the tag on in that case.

The fact Paul knows whether he caught is is not the same as what the ump knows. That's why catchers routinely tag the guy on a throw that's near the dirt.

But he knew the ump knew, because the ump gave the very same hand signals (and presumably aural signals as well) for a K in that AB as he did every other K of the game. I remember ESPN showed the montage of all Eddings' K calls in that game, and in every case the sequence of hand signals (and presumably aural signals) was exactly the same.

Paul knew he caught the ball, the Angels knew, everyone knew he caught the ball. Even Doug Eddings knew. And then he let Pierzynski fool him into thinking he must have been wrong. And here we are 3 years later, and Doug Eddings is still allowing Pierzynski to fool him out there on the field. Doug Eddings is a very stupid man, apparently.

EDIT: I see Shredder has already covered my points. I'll show myself out.

But since he signaled out it was clear he knew that Paul had caught it. Or at the very least he made it clear to everyone else that he knew that Paul caught it.

How the hell did Paul know what hand signal Eddings gave? He's facing the other direction.

And again, what that play really showed was how inadequate Doug Eddings is a major league umpire. So many questions. Why, for example, would he let AJ's actions dictate his call? And why were AJ's actions more convincing than Paul's? Why make the same hand motions after every single strikeout, only to claim later on that what he did wasn't really the out call? And of course, why go on TV in front of millions of viewers and lie about it, repeatedly?

The guy should never have been promoted to begin with, and he should have been fired about six times over since the beginning of the 2005 season.

How the hell did Paul know what hand signal Eddings gave? He's facing the other direction.

I think these are separate issues. Paul shouldn't have seen the hand signal. He said that most umpires will yell "no catch" or something similar on those plays, and that Eddings did not say that on the that play. I'm unaware whether he made such an vocal signal earlier in the game, in which case Paul would have relied on the lack of "no catch" call right there. That's issue #1.

Issue #2 is Eddings' hand signal, which is all we have go on, which shows that, like every other strikeout in the game, he signaled the batter out. This issue has nothing to do with Paul. He made two motions. One with his hand swinging to the right indicating a swing and miss, and the other a closed fist pump, indicating out. It's reasonable to assume the other players, who had time to pick up the ball and throw AJ out, relied on the out signal. In fact, Darin Erstad ran at Eddings to argue making that very motion.

In the interest of overkill, since I referenced McCarver, this was what he said at the time (emphasis mine):

“The most salient thing that comes to my mind is the catcher can feel he has caught the ball without it short-hopping into the mitt,” McCarver said. “As a catcher you just automatically roll the ball back to the pitcher. Inning over.

“Josh Paul caught the ball. He knew he caught the ball. You know if there is leather between the dirt and the ball. As a catcher, he just knows that instinctively. I know Josh Paul has been taking some heat, but he shouldn’t be.

And back to the lying sack of crap, there's no way he could have seen the following during the actual game.

Eddings said after the game that the ball changed directions before it reached Paul’s glove, meaning it hit the dirt.

That's full CYA, but what I'd expect from a liar like Eddings. Also, there's This piece from Verducci where

Eddings admitted he called a dropped third strike more emphatically earlier in the game.

All the usual disclaimers (the call didn't cost the Angels the series, the better team won, Escobar shouldn't have hung the slider to Crede, etc.) still apply.

My favorite Eddings memory. By the way, that comes from an awesomely-titled blog.

All the usual disclaimers (the call didn't cost the Angels the series, the better team won, Escobar shouldn't have hung the slider to Crede, etc.) still apply.

White Sox fans are conspicuous by their silence here, so I'll just chime in to say you're right all the way about Eddings.

The Sox would have won game 2 in extras anyway...and they swept the next 3 games.

but arguably the most egregious was a game between the Angels and Royals in early 2005. Darin Erstad, who had a penchant for reaching via catcher's interference, swung at a pitch and knocked the glove off of John Buck's hand. The glove landed five feet out in front of home plate. Eddings didn't make the call. ...Eddings is simply incapable of making a quick decision.

My intuition tells me that Eddings got a reprimand about this "no call" and is now ensuring that he makes a call on these kinds of plays all the time. That's the sort of predicament an umpire is in - there's really no time you can make a "no call". When there is a rule violation it MUST be called - there's no room for "it wouldn't have mattered anyway" judgments. I didn't see the Erstad play mentioned, but it really sounds like Eddings was told that he can't just let rules slide occasionally. I think Eddings is probably guilty of giving Pierzynski the benefit of the doubt in the Josh Paul play (which if true is bad on Eddings' part, but we'll never really know), however in this Aybar play there is clearly a case of a fielder not fielding a ball being in the basepath and contact being made - there's nothing in the rules about initiation of contact. (And thank god for that, the last thing baseball needs is NFL-style boredom while the officials guess at what the rule is this year.)

IMPEDING THE MOVEMENT OF THE RUNNER

AJ is like a predator, preying on weak umps and situations where the right call takes some guts. I recall him throwing a forearm into Alex Gonzalez's midsection in 2006 to break up a double play in the 11th inning of a game in Chicago. The double play was not turned and a run scored tieing and prolonging the game. Interference should have been called against Pierzynski. Of course, making a call like that in extra innings during a game in Chicago which would have ended in a White Sox loss took cajones that no umpire posesses. AJ knew that, and exploited the situation.

He's a very very smart player who knows the game inside and out, and can make quick decisions. Also, I'm hoping some batter drills him on the backswing.

It's obvious that AJ is sticking his arm out to signal for a left turn. Ayabar got in the way of this ==> obstruction.

One of the most entertaining things about BTF is the righteous wrath of Shredder talking about Doug Eddings. I was hoping he'd get into this thread. I'm being totally serious when I say: It will never get old.

Actually, when I first saw the video, I thought it looked like AJ wanted to run into the second baseman but pulled back because the second baseman had got well clear of the basepath. Which is how AJ came to be way over to the infield side of the path in the first place.

AJ is like a predator, preying on weak umps and situations where the right call takes some guts. I recall him throwing a forearm into Alex Gonzalez's midsection in 2006 to break up a double play in the 11th inning of a game in Chicago. The double play was not turned and a run scored tieing and prolonging the game. Interference should have been called against Pierzynski. Of course, making a call like that in extra innings during a game in Chicago which would have ended in a White Sox loss took cajones that no umpire posesses. AJ knew that, and exploited the situation.

Ah, yes. It's AJ's fault, because the umpires are scared of him.

Please, AJ, don't hurt 'em!

AJ is like a predator,

What type of predator? A lion? A leopard? A tiger? A titmouse?

All of them. He's a titgerliopard. It's pretty much my favorite animal.

On edit: no, wait... titiontigopard. Yeah, that's it. Favorite animal.

One of the most entertaining things about BTF is the righteous wrath of Shredder talking about Doug Eddings. I was hoping he'd get into this thread. I'm being totally serious when I say: It will never get old.

It may never get old, but it's worth pointing out that Shredder distinguishes between his own team pushing the envelope and getting a favorable ruling, and other teams (or players on other teams) doing the same. Quoting from this article:

The most notable example of a team taking advantage of this loophole in Rule 40(a) is when the Angels got Francisco Rodriguez onto their playoff roster in 2002 even though he wasn't a big leaguer until Sept. 15 of that season. He'd go on to win a huge five October games for the club, rising in a few weeks from anonymity to stardom.

As stated above, the Commissioner has to approve a team's attempt to activate a post-Aug. 31 player for the playoffs, based on it having an "eligible player ... unable to render service in a postseason series because of a specific injury." In the Angels' case, the "eligible player" in 2002 was evidently right-hander Steve Green, who had pitched in one big league game in his career -- 18 months earlier. Green had shoulder surgery after making one April 2001 start for Anaheim and missed the entire 2002 season. For the Commissioner to rule as the 2002 season ended that Green was an "eligible player" under Rule 40(a) seemed to be a bit of a drastic relaxing of the rules.

One of the most entertaining things about BTF is the righteous wrath of Shredder talking about Doug Eddings. I was hoping he'd get into this thread. I'm being totally serious when I say: It will never get old.

Well, I do what I can. Every so often when I'm feeling riled up, I'll go back and re-read my old blog posts on the topic. Makes me feel feisty.

It may never get old, but it's worth pointing out that Shredder distinguishes between his own team pushing the envelope and getting a favorable ruling, and other teams (or players on other teams) doing the same.

And the two are analogous how, exactly? I'll gladly debate that rule on the merits (I think it's a ridiculously dumb rule to begin with), or on it's application in this instance. Either Green was eligible or he wasn't. If he had healed and been ready to come off the DL at the time, he would have been eligible for the post-season. You really can't argue that's not the case. Was it roster sleight of hand? Absolutely. Was it completely legal? Absolutely.

If I remember correctly, the question wasn't whether Green qualified under 40(a), but whether Rodriguez qualified because he may not have been on the 40 man roster as of September 1st. I don't recall whether a) the 40 man roster is relevant here, or b) whether Frankie was on it at the time.

Regardless, I don't find the two situations particularly analogous.

It's not his fault that umps are weak, it's just irritating and unsportsmanlike that he takes advantage of it. This isn't Jeter being heads up by lingering with tags at second base in case the player comes off before calling time, which is a clever way of taking advantage of weak players. AJ's version of heads up is to out and out bend and break the rules.

What exactly was this "heady" play that Pierzynski mapped out?

1) Run for third on a grounder well in front of him.
2) Get trapped in a run-down
3) Get one of the fielders close enough and fake obstruction
4) $$$

Truly, a diabolical scheme. Or, more likely, a clever attempt to make the best of a situation created by a stupid play that was just about the opposite of heady.

He was heady enough to make contact with an infielder in the hopes that it would bail him out of his stupid mistake.

Seems to run squarely against the "very very smart player" diagnosis, is all.

I don't recall whether a) the 40 man roster is relevant here, or b) whether Frankie was on it at the time.

The 40 man roster on August 31 is what determines post-season eligibility, so yeah, it's relevant. And the fact that Frankie wasn't on it was the whole point of the roster sleight of hand.

And the fact that Frankie wasn't on it was the whole point of the roster sleight of hand.

Not really. The sleight of hand comes from him not being on the 25 man roster or one of the inactive lists on August 31st. I can't find the text of rule 40(a), so I'll defer to the article linked above which states:

But Rule 40(a) goes on to say that if an eligible player is unable to play in a postseason series because of injury, his club may request permission from the Commissioner to replace him with a player from the club's Minor League system.

There are two restrictions with regard to the replacement player. First, he must have been on a Minor League roster for the club in question on Aug. 31 (and remained in the organization through the end of the regular season). Second, an injured pitcher may only be replaced by a pitcher. And a non-pitcher may only be replaced by a non-pitcher -- and they don't have to play the same position.

1) This says nothing about the 40 man roster. It mentions that a replacement must be in the minor league system, which Rodriguez most certainly was as of August 31st. Of that there is no debate.

2) There is also no debate that Green was eligible for the post-season roster.

So it was appear that the 40 man roster isn't relevant, assuming the article is correct. For what it's worth, Jim Callis does say that a player must be on the 40 man roster, but I still can't find the exact rule. Better yet, here's Keith Law's explanation of it from an ESPN blog about a year ago:

Major League Rule 40(a) states that to be eligible to play in a postseason series for a certain club, a player must be on the Active Roster, Disabled List, Bereavement List, or Suspended List of that club as of midnight ET on Aug. 31 of that year. But if any eligible player is unable to play in a playoff series because he's hurt, his team can apply to the Commissioner's Office to replace that player with any player who was in their organization -- meaning that he was on the roster of one of their affiliated minor-league clubs -- on Aug. 31, so long as he remained in the organization through the end of the major league season. The only restriction, other than requiring the Commissioner's approval for all such substitutions, is that a pitcher must be replaced by a pitcher, and a position player must be replaced by a position player.

This rule was most famously exploited in 2002, when the Angels used the spot created by having Steve Green on the DL all season to add Francisco Rodriguez to their playoff roster. K-Rod wasn't added to the Angels' 40-man roster until after Sept. 1, but played a huge role in the team's world championship run that October.

Now, Keith brings up the 40 man roster issue, but from his description of the rule, it still doesn't matter. A player can be on a team's affiliated minor league club and not be on the 40 man roster.

So to recap:
1) I can't find text of the rule.
2) Callis claims the minor leaguer has to come from the 40 man roster.
3) Law alludes to this, but paraphrases the rule to say that a player need only be in a team's minor league system at the time (this is also what the quoted article above says). The only way I'm wrong about this is if player must be on the 40 man roster to be technically "in an organization". In other words, is a first round pick in Single A "in an organization" even if he hasn't been added to the 40 man roster?
4) The player must still be approved by the commissioner, which Rodriguez was.
5) There's no real question to Green's legal eligibility.
6) I think the rule is pretty stupid anyway. Personally, I don't think there should be a limit, other than to say that the post-season roster is limited to players in the organization as of August 31st, regardless of who is on the 25 man or 40 man on that particular day.

Seems to run squarely against the "very very smart player" diagnosis, is all.

Everyone makes bone-headed plays. It takes an exceptionally smart player to bail themselves out of those mistakes.

One thing I always wonder when a ball is fielded just in front of the plate on the first base side is: since most runners run in fair territory, why doesn't the player fielding the ball hit them in the back with a throw? That seems like something AJ would do. Has he ever done it?

You misunderstood me, Shredder. My understanding was that the 40-man was relevant because Rodriguez would have been eligible without needing to invoke rule 40(a) if he'd been on the 40-man as of August 31. Maybe not, though. It's still indirectly relevant in the sense that players on the 15-day DL as well as the bereavement list have to be on the 40-man. Players on the 60-day DL aren't on the 40-man, but they had to be on it when they got hurt, or they aren't eligible for the 60-day DL in the first place.

I don't remember where I read it, but I'm fairly certain a player only has to be in the organization by August 31st, and not on the 40 man roster in order to be eligible as a "replacement"

My understanding was that the 40-man was relevant because Rodriguez would have been eligible without needing to invoke rule 40(a) if he'd been on the 40-man as of August 31

No, the post-season roster is the 25 man and anyone on one of the inactive lists. They can be replaced by anyone in the organization (maybe) if they're still inactive when the playoffs start.

Players on the 60-day DL aren't on the 40-man, but they had to be on it when they got hurt, or they aren't eligible for the 60-day DL in the first place.

Which Green was. It's relevant for him, but he's not really the issue. The question is whether Rodriguez needed to be on the 40 man. I can't find a good answer for that. The general consensus seems to be that he did not need to be, but Callis apparently thinks different. I'm trying to track down the rule.

Still a stupid rule, though.

since most runners run in fair territory, why doesn't the player fielding the ball hit them in the back with a throw? That seems like something AJ would do. Has he ever done it?

Rob Dibble and Doug Dascenzo? :) Actually, it makes sense, but you're also relying on the umpire to make the right call. Probably easier to just throw him out if you can.

If a player is on the 40 man by August 31st, then they are elligable for a playoff roster with no shenanigans required.

Jim Callis getting the rule 100% wrong is not helping unmuddy the waters here.

If you watch the whole play, it looks as if Eddings exchanges words with AJ before he even makes a call. I call shenanigans.

If a player is on the 40 man by August 31st, then they are elligable for a playoff roster with no shenanigans required.

Are you sure? I've been reading "active roster" to mean 25 man roster. I could be completely wrong, though.

If "active" means the 25 man roster, then all of our speculative posts about rosters before the Division Series are moot, as the playoff roster was set back on Aug 31.

Aybar made a bad decision by waiting too long to throw the ball

Isn't it the responsibility of the guy receiving the throw to call for the ball, not for the guy with the ball to throw it?

This has already been mentioned, but AJ shouldn't have been on second base to begin with. Quentin's fly ball was deep but didn't reach the warning track & Upton had more than enough time to get under the ball and get it back into the outfield. Instead, he caught the ball at his side, did a little spin, and got the ball in quickly after he saw AJ running for second. If AJ is held at first, Dye hits into a DP with that ground ball and the Rays get another chance to bat.

If "active" means the 25 man roster, then all of our speculative posts about rosters before the Division Series are moot, as the playoff roster was set back on Aug 31.

I don't follow. Your playoff roster may consist of 25 of the following:
1) The 25 guys active on August 31st;
2) Anyone on the DL, Bereavement list, etc., on that date.

Furthermore, anyone in the organization on August 31st may replace someone otherwise eligible via 1) and 2), if that otherwise eligible player is unable to perform in the post-season because of injury, provided that only a pitcher may replace a pitcher, and a position player may replace a position player.

So the 40 man argument is what is moot. What's relevant is the 25 man, and the inactive lists.

In addition to his Physioc-like ability to miscomprehend events happening right in front of his face, Eddings has one of the worst strike zones I've ever seen. I've seen him call out guys looking on pitches at shoulder height. I'm all in favor of the high strike, but ... come on.

Why are September callups frequently on playoff rosters if that's the case? Surely, they weren't on the 25 man roster on Aug 31. How did Ellsbury make the Red Sox playoff roster? He was sent down on August 17th and called back up September 1st. The 40 man roster is the relevant roster.

Ellsbury replaced Brandon Donnelly, who was on the 60 day DL. Or maybe Matt Clement.

provided that only a pitcher may replace a pitcher, and a position player may replace a position player.

That part is no longer true, as of last year. It used to be true. Anyone can replace a DL player.

If that's the case, why was there no mention of the Red Sox exploiting this rule? Does it still require the permission of the Commisioner?

The Red Sox left off a healthy Julian Tavarez, who was on their 25 man roster. How is he replaced if he's not hurt and the 40 man roster is irrelevant?

There was plenty of mention of it. There was an entire thread in Sox Therapy about how to best exploit the new rule.

The Red Sox left off a healthy Julian Tavarez, who was on their 25 man roster. How is he replaced if he's not hurt and the 40 man roster is irrelevant?

Because you can only have 25 guys on your playoff roster. Ellsbury replaced somebody who was hurt as #143 said. Since the DLd guy wasn't on the active roster as of 8/31 then the Red Sox were up to 26 guys. Tavarez was left off then.

So what is the basis that the Commissioner is supposed to use to approve or deny the roster move?

I thought that the new rule last year was that a player could be replaced mid-series in the DS and LCS, only that player would be excluded from the following series as well.

I guess the 40 man roster being the relevant one was set in my mind because of the press the K-Rod move got (and how it was exceptional because he wasn't on the 40 man until mid-September), and how I can't see the Commisioner allowing all these moves willy-nilly. Well, I can, but I can't believe a bigger deal hadn't been made of it.

and how I can't see the Commisioner allowing all these moves willy-nilly.

Maybe he thinks it's a stupid rule, too. Seriously, in this day and age, can anyone explain to me why you shouldn't be allowed to use anyone in your system as of August 31st (I think there needs to be at least some sort of trade deadline)? This isn't beer league softball. Teams can't just go to the local bar and pick up a ringer for the playoffs. What good reason is there to disallow the use of a player that you drafted (or signed), developed, and had in your system all along when the playoffs roll around. Why shouldn't you be allowed to choose 25 guys from your entire organization? Want to put your whole double A team on the playoff roster? Why not? If something makes you think they give you the best chance to win, have at it.

I agree that it's a stupid rule. I wish it would just be changed to reflect your sentiments rather being something that people work around.

It's a dumb rule like the one where a drafted player can't be traded for a year. Who cares? Other sports trade them immediately, or even when they're just slots on a whiteboard. Leave to baseball to have a pointless rule.

It's a dumb rule like the one where a drafted player can't be traded for a year. Who cares?

Is that a rule or part of the CBA? I agree that it's dumb, I just wasn't sure if it was a dumb rule that players and owners agreed upon.

Is that a rule or part of the CBA? I agree that it's dumb, I just wasn't sure if it was a dumb rule that players and owners agreed upon.

It's the Pete Incaviglia rule.

There has always been a rule that you can't trade draft picks, and the Expos got around it by signing Incaviglia and then immediately trading him. So they added a new rule which said that it couldn't be done for at least a year.

No, it's a major league rule, not a negotiated one.