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

Tuesday, April 30, 2019

MLB roundup: Twins’ Odorizzi outduels Astros’ Verlander

Ehire Adrianza homered, and Jake Odorizzi pitched seven shutout innings to outduel Justin Verlander as the Minnesota Twins edged the Houston Astros 1-0 on Monday night in Minneapolis.

It was the third consecutive win for Odorizzi (3-2), including two in a row over the Astros. He allowed four singles and a walk while striking out seven.

Taylor Rogers pitched a scoreless eighth, and Blake Parker erased a leadoff single to Carlos Correa to start the ninth by inducing Yuli Gurriel to hit into a double play. Parker then got Josh Reddick to ground out to end the game for his sixth save.

Verlander (4-1), who lost for just the third time in his past 21 starts (14-3) against Minnesota, gave up two hits, two walks and a run over six innings before departing after throwing 100 pitches, 66 of which were strikes. He struck out seven.

So, how will they duel next?

 

QLE Posted: April 30, 2019 at 04:06 AM | 15 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: jake odorizzi, justin verlander

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. Brian Posted: April 30, 2019 at 10:43 AM (#5836690)
The pitch before the HR should have been strike 3 but the third base ump ruled he checked his swing. Replay showed, as it does 95% of the time if there is any question, that Adrianza had indeed swung.
   2. bfan Posted: April 30, 2019 at 12:12 PM (#5836739)
So, how will they duel next?


when an AL play-off contender trades for him at the trade deadline for the express purposes of pitching in the post-season against the Astros.
   3. jmurph Posted: April 30, 2019 at 12:26 PM (#5836745)
should have been strike 3 but the third base ump ruled he checked his swing. Replay showed, as it does 95% of the time if there is any question

I actually go the other way on this. As far as I can tell, there is no official definition of a checked swing. Also no definition of a swing, weirdly enough. But if we can infer that a swing is roughly defined as an attempt to hit the ball, a check swing should almost never be called a strike.
   4. Brian Posted: April 30, 2019 at 07:27 PM (#5836911)
Gotta go through the MLB rule book but in the meantime: The NCAA rulebook indicates that a checked swing shall be called a strike “if the barrel head of the bat crosses the front edge of home plate or the batter's front hip.”
   5. SoSH U at work Posted: April 30, 2019 at 07:31 PM (#5836912)
Gotta go through the MLB rule book but in the meantime: T


Don't bother. jmurph is correct. The checked swing is not defined, and no clear definition for the swing itself is in the MLB rulebook.

   6. Brian Posted: April 30, 2019 at 07:31 PM (#5836913)
Yep Murph, there is no official definition in the MLB rule book but the umps usually go with something like the NCAA version or a"breaking" of the wrists kind of thing.
   7. Best Dressed Chicken in Town Posted: April 30, 2019 at 11:45 PM (#5837028)
They judge it based on whether they think the bat goes past perpendicular to the body.
   8. the Hugh Jorgan returns Posted: May 01, 2019 at 12:25 AM (#5837032)
As a kid playing ball it was either the "breaking" of the wrist or bat over front edge of plate. Neither of which is clearly defined as your position in the box can make difference in the latter interpretation. I like that it's not clearly defined. I don't need a specific rule for every tiny movement in a game. Oh, and I loathe replay, so there is that.
   9. Lance Reddick! Lance him! Posted: May 01, 2019 at 01:08 AM (#5837038)
A swing is defined as "an attempt to strike at the ball," which pretty much means a checked swing shouldn't be called a strike.
   10. Walt Davis Posted: May 01, 2019 at 01:50 AM (#5837041)
1. Or one could decide that all swings, checked or not, are an attempt to strike at the ball. Certainly the intent was to strike the ball, the bat's movement began as an attempt to strike at the ball ... then the batter realized he had no hope of striking the ball and tried to stop it (not that anybody ever taught this to Javy Baez). So if the intent was to strike at the ball and the bat moved attempting to strike at the ball, why should there be a magical point at which the swing stopped being an attempt to strike at the ball?

2. The purpose of the NCAA and unwritten MLB rule is to define such a magical point -- it defines a "clear" attempt to strike at the ball as a swing that passes a certain point. The definition can also be viewed as saying "if the bat travels through the hitting zone." At some point, a swing becomes a swing and obviously many swings don't make contact so either swings become swings at conception or the Supreme Court has to decide at what point a developing swing becomes a swing.

2a. Even if you don't like the 2/3 of a swing = a full swing rule, you've got to define a full swing. When the head of the bat passes the pitching rubber? (Leaving it up to the 2B umpire)

3. About the only other "workable" definition would be something like "if the bat's forward motion is stopped prior to the ball reaching the plate, it is not a swing" ... good luck judging that in real time.

4. Let's not forget that once the ball hits the bat, it's a "swing" whether the batter swung or not. Metaphysically speaking, if a batter can swing without swinging, clearly he can swing by kinda swinging.

Neither of which is clearly defined as your position in the box can make difference in the latter interpretation.

The NCAA rule would seem to solve this with "or the batter's front hip."

   11. jmurph Posted: May 01, 2019 at 09:58 AM (#5837085)
Or one could decide that all swings, checked or not, are an attempt to strike at the ball. Certainly the intent was to strike the ball, the bat's movement began as an attempt to strike at the ball ... then the batter realized he had no hope of striking the ball and tried to stop it (not that anybody ever taught this to Javy Baez). So if the intent was to strike at the ball and the bat moved attempting to strike at the ball, why should there be a magical point at which the swing stopped being an attempt to strike at the ball?

Because he stopped swinging. This has been a pet peeve of mine forever- or since I first learned there is no actual definition of a checked swing, and umpires have just made it up. Which probably wasn't that long ago.

They should probably just codify it, I wouldn't have a problem with the breaking the plane rule. I just think it's really odd that, currently, players who are very clearly not intending to swing (I mean, by definition, they're stopping their swing, they are therefore objectively not attempting to strike the ball), get rung up because a guy 100ish feet away says they crossed a magical line that umpires made up decades ago and isn't in the rule book.
   12. SoSH U at work Posted: May 01, 2019 at 10:03 AM (#5837091)
I've never really had a strong feeling one way or another on checked swings. The only one that bothered me was when Giancarlo Stanton got blasted in the face and a strike was called. In that case, he most obviously wasn't doing the one vague definition of a swing - he wasn't trying to strike at the ball.

I was a little less bothered by the strikeout of Trevor Story last week.



   13. jmurph Posted: May 01, 2019 at 10:38 AM (#5837119)
The only one that bothered me was when Giancarlo Stanton got blasted in the face and a strike was called. In that case, he most obviously wasn't doing the one vague definition of a swing - he wasn't trying to strike at the ball.

Yeah it's not at all frequent, but you occasionally get a guy twisting away from an inside pitch who somehow is ruled to swing because the bat came around with his body. That's dumb.

   14. PreservedFish Posted: May 01, 2019 at 10:48 AM (#5837126)
When I was in little league if a ball was headed toward my upper body I would involuntarily swing the bat at it, defensively. Got several strikes called against me because of this. Solved it by having my father throw wiffle balls at my head for an hour.
   15. BillWallace Posted: May 01, 2019 at 05:58 PM (#5837380)
It's always seemed madness to me that a half-swing in which the bat easily would have made contact with the ball, if only it were in the right place, can get called a ball.
You're essentially being saved from your own mistake of putting the bat through the strike zone at a bad pitch simply because you were too incompetent to actually strike the ball.

Given there is no official rule, if I were umpire of every game it would be a strike every single time the bat fully entered the strike zone.
Or to put it another way, let's say the umpire is at 0 degrees and the pitcher is at 180 degrees. Typically they call a strike when the bat passes 90 degrees. I would call a strike starting at about 45.

Definitely my biggest baseball pet peeve.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

News

All News | Prime News

Old-School Newsstand


BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam M
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogCardinals' speed-based style thrilled baseball fans in the 1980s, but would it work today?
(20 - 9:00pm, Jan 26)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogCraig Calcaterra’s Imaginary Hall of Fame Ballot
(79 - 8:42pm, Jan 26)
Last: Joe Bivens, Slack Rumped Rutabaga Head

NewsblogJustin Turner on Astros' 2017 World Series Title: 'It's Hard to Feel They Earned It'
(4 - 8:34pm, Jan 26)
Last: depletion

Newsblog'There are better things to come:' Canada's Taillon upbeat during Tommy John rehab
(5 - 8:25pm, Jan 26)
Last: crict

NewsblogOT - NBA Thread 2020
(713 - 8:21pm, Jan 26)
Last: puck

NewsblogOT - Catch-All Pop Culture Extravaganza (January 2020)
(216 - 7:46pm, Jan 26)
Last: the Centaur Nipple Paradox (CoB).

NewsblogFortified White Sox say they’re ready to contend again
(4 - 7:40pm, Jan 26)
Last: Dock Ellis

NewsblogAstros manager rumors: Brad Ausmus joins Dusty Baker, Buck Showalter, John Gibbons as candidates for
(14 - 7:33pm, Jan 26)
Last: SoSH U at work

NewsblogHe’s ‘Nat’ done yet: Virginia Beach’s Ryan Zimmerman reportedly signs one-year deal with Washington
(19 - 5:20pm, Jan 26)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogOT - Soccer Thread - January, 2020
(277 - 5:00pm, Jan 26)
Last: AuntBea calls himself Sky Panther

NewsblogPosnanski: Baseball 100 Rules
(435 - 4:16pm, Jan 26)
Last: McCoy

NewsblogWhy A's players don't mind trade-offs with extended protective netting
(1 - 3:12pm, Jan 26)
Last: bobm

NewsblogRyan Thibs’ Hall of Fame Tracker
(1460 - 2:51pm, Jan 26)
Last: cookiedabookie

NewsblogFormer Astros pitcher Dallas Keuchel apologizes for 2017 cheating scandal
(13 - 12:28pm, Jan 26)
Last: Blastin

NewsblogRoyals star Pérez becomes US Citizen at team’s fan event
(9 - 12:11pm, Jan 26)
Last: Brian C

Page rendered in 0.2942 seconds
46 querie(s) executed