User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Page rendered in 0.7642 seconds
45 querie(s) executed
| ||||||||
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Discussion
| ||||||||
Baseball Primer Newsblog — The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand Sunday, October 10, 2021Rays’ ground-rule double in 13th causes confusion
RoyalsRetro (AG#1F)
Posted: October 10, 2021 at 11:29 PM | 91 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags: ground rule double, rays, red sox |
Login to submit news.
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks. Hot TopicsNewsblog: OT Soccer Thread - Crowning Champions and Pro-Rel
(162 - 7:07pm, May 23) Last: The_Ex Newsblog: 2022 NBA Playoffs thread (1743 - 6:55pm, May 23) Last: asinwreck Newsblog: Yankees, White Sox benches clear after Josh Donaldson calls Tim Anderson 'Jackie' Robinson (53 - 6:36pm, May 23) Last: Lassus Newsblog: These 5 MLB Breakouts Are (Probably) For Real (11 - 6:19pm, May 23) Last: Captain Joe Bivens, Pointless and Wonderful Newsblog: Zach Davies’ estranged wife says MLB pitcher ghosted her for a year (64 - 6:03pm, May 23) Last: Hombre Brotani Newsblog: JOEY VOTTO IS THE GREATEST REDS PLAYER OF ALL TIME (27 - 5:27pm, May 23) Last: Walt Davis Newsblog: Look Good, Feel Good, Play Good. Smell Good? (6 - 5:11pm, May 23) Last: Walt Davis Hall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1899 Ballot (1 - 5:02pm, May 23) Last: DL from MN Newsblog: Roger Angell, Who Wrote About Baseball With Passion, Dies at 101 (54 - 12:51pm, May 23) Last: ERROR---Jolly Old St. Nick Newsblog: Adley Rutschman, MLB's No. 1 prospect, called up to O's (29 - 12:40pm, May 23) Last: Never Give an Inge (Dave) Newsblog: Former Giants fan-favorite infielder Joe Panik retires from MLB (16 - 12:05pm, May 23) Last: jingoist Sox Therapy: One Step Forward (19 - 11:57am, May 23) Last: villageidiom Newsblog: Juan Soto trade rumors: Nationals may be 'motivated' to trade outfielder (58 - 11:06am, May 23) Last: bfan Newsblog: WEEKEND OMNICHATTER for May 20-22, 2022 (120 - 9:59am, May 23) Last: The Duke Newsblog: Sports teams love crypto. What happens when their sponsor strikes out? (12 - 8:35am, May 23) Last: AuntBea odeurs de parfum de distance sociale |
|||||||
About Baseball Think Factory | Write for Us | Copyright © 1996-2021 Baseball Think Factory
User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
|
| Page rendered in 0.7642 seconds |
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. JJ1986 Posted: October 11, 2021 at 07:20 AM (#6045356)Don’t get me wrong — it was clearly the correct call. But I understand the feeling that the rule itself is “wrong”.
People understand the end results of a ground rule / automatic double. I think the problem here is that the ball didn't simply bounce over the fence. It bounced off the fence then off the ground then off the fielder (who was attempting to play the ball) and THEN over the fence. That sequence is fundamentally different from the normal ground rule / automatic double. The real issue here is that the rule actually benefits the team that misplays the ball. If Hunter Renfroe fields the ball cleanly and immediately fires the ball towards home Diaz still scores the go ahead run standing up. But Renfroe instead played human backstop and clanked the ball out of play, which may have saved the game and the Red Sox season. It should be obvious that in any sport a team shouldn't earn an advantage by making a bad play. Whether Renfroe intended to botch the catch should be immaterial, all that matters is that he did so. Mike Zunino didn't intend to go 0-6 with 4 Ks, but that's what he did. Luis Patino certainly didn't mean to groove a first pitch fastball to Christian Vazquez, but oops that's what happened.
The rule was on the books and it was applied correctly. That doesn't mean it's not a dumb rule.
Do not understand the panic about what incentives this "creates". Um. It's been the rule forever, and this is the first time it's come up. Even if every OF in America watched Renfroe and came away thinking "oh damn that's what I'll do if given the chance", how often would they actually get the chance? Not to mention the rule distinguishes between intentional/unintentional. So the concern is that in an incredibly rare situation, which the OF has never experienced before, they will decide to knock the ball out of the field of play and be able to make it look unintentional.
I mean, by all means change the rule, but if they forget to, I think MLB will survive.
Because society has given conspiracy fantasy loons a seat at the adult table, now everything has some conspiratorial angle to it such that a given outcome is "rigged." In the heat of a playoff game, in extra innings, with the go-ahead run on the line, no one is thinking on a bang-bang reaction/reflex play, "I can't make the play, but how can I game the minutia of rule book to my advantage?"
Except perhaps A.J. Pierzynski.
One reason the Rays didn't put up much of a stink is they (at least Cash) knew the rule. They benefitted from it in 2019.
The rules are clear that if the umpire judges it to be intentional, it’s two bases from where the runners were at the time the ball goes out of play, not from the time of the pitch. I cited it in the game chatter last night.
I also think, practically speaking, it would be extremely difficult to execute what Renfroe did if you were actually trying to do so. It was a fluke play, and people should generally chill out about it.
The rule is two bases. The only time discretion comes into play is fan interference.
Do not understand the panic about what incentives this "creates".
Yes, agree.
the rule actually benefits the team that misplays the ball.
I think one of my issues here is this definition of misplay. It seems unfair, like he 5-holed a grounder or bobbled something into the stands. He was running to make a desperate play in extras in a playoff game. Even if it HADN'T been a playoff game it's not likely he would have given up on it in extras. He slowed down as fast as he was able and it ricocheted off him.
If a rocket line-drive hits 3B and then heads into the stands off the third baseman's heel, is that a misplay? I suppose I'm having semantic issues, but marking this as some kind of fielder bungle seems simply inaccurate to me, narratively. Maybe that's dumb or immaterial.
Seems like this would mean that -- runner at 1B -- there might be situations where one SHOULD throw the ball out of play on something into the gaps or the corner.... At least/especially with 2 outs -- hard to get most runners at the plate, figuring they're off with the crack of the bat, so why not toss it into the stands, keep the lead runner at 3B and try your luck with the next batter?
The way I saw this it was two times his foot came off, one initially and one at the end of all the clips. IMO, the out was for the second time, but it's pretty hard to tell. It seemed a good definition of "must have compelling evidence to overturn", because there was a guy there who could see, and most of the camera angles didn't do a great job.
If a liner goes off the pitcher's head (god rest his soul) and into the stands, is that a home run? Seems to be consistent with the Canseco rule. I'd think they'd want it to be a double. Though, agreed, two bases there is harsh. Which is why I think umps should have discretion to place runners.
I contend calling a ricochet in which the control is almost nil a misplay in the same way that a throw into the stands is a misplay not accurate. I suppose that's a subjective judgment call, but calling those things similar is not right IMO.
If a liner goes off the pitcher's head (god rest his soul) and into the stands, is that a home run? Seems to be consistent with the Canseco rule.
If a liner goes 330 - 400 ft off a pitcher's head and over the fence between the foul poles, yes, that's a HR. You can't mean like over 3B into the stands, though.
We've been hearing our whole lives how lucky the defensive team was that the ball bounced out because the guy on first had to stop at third. Slippery sloping every single one of those into a judgment call sounds really bad.
You and I just disagree on the ricochet. Yeah, it's not intentional. But it's still sloppy fielding. The Rays shouldn't end up wishing Roberto Clemente was out there. At the end of that play, one team was going to take a hit. I contend it would be better for it to be the team whose RFer couldn't catch the ball cleanly off the wall rather than the team who mashed a ball off the wall. One team made a positive play. One a negative play. But the team making the negative play caught the break. That seems backwards.
Also, how many bases does a batter get if they line a ball off the pitcher into the seats? Two seems too many but that seems to be the rule.
Also, it's Monday, I'm tired and I have something I really need to finish. So, please, somebody keep arguing with me.
People (no, not you, in general) seem to hate umpires, so additional judgment calls just seem troubling.
Bounce over OF wall, runners get three bases, batter two.
Bad vs. good throwers & fielders, slow vs. fast runners. You're giving an awful lot of catchers and lumbering OFs a real unfair ability to score with that.
FYI, I'm not OMG I'M RIGHT on this at all, the discussion is interesting. I just don't know that unintended consequences in response to this trump what was very accurately (IMO) referred to above by Dave as a fluke play.
Easy solution that avoids slippery sloping: Just give the umpire discretion to advance the runner three bases WHENEVER A BALL HITS A FIELDER OR A FIELDER'S GLOVE, AND THEN BOUNCES OVER THE FENCE.
Same.
Nate, it is a huge break, though. If Renfroe had somehow fielded that ball and made a throw to hold the runner it would have been hailed as a miraculous play, one for the ages.
I was responding to his post that refers to dissatisfaction with ALL balls that bounce out, not the one-in-a-million play from last night.
Eh his initial reaction had some charm but then he went too far.
And the hypothetical you describe is almost impossible. A miraculous throw would get the runner out, it wouldn't make him stay at third.
So he was good at first but then he went too far?
I was responding to his post that refers to dissatisfaction with ALL balls that bounce out, not the one-in-a-million play from last night.
I'd still be in favor of umpire discretion in those cases, but with the default being the two base advancement. I realize the problems inherent in such a solution, but there are still plenty of cases where everyone would acknowledge that the runner on first would've easily scored. And with replay cameras it's easy to see how far the runner had gone by the time the ball bounced over the fence.
I said nothing about anyone disagreeing with me, but about the shrieking in general when it happened. PF also literally admitted he was shrieking.
When I say "predict the future" I mean something like this: Remember the play that ended the NLCS where Ryan Howard's achilles blew up as he stepped out of the box in a series-ending AB. Well, imagine if--in that situation--the fielder was so excited to end the series he threw the ball into the stands? Howard--who in no way, shape, or form, would have made it to 2B on his own, even if the ball was rolling up the right-field line instead--would have been awarded 2B... even though he never made it even to 1B. If the umpires had discretion, Howard could rightly be called out because, after all, he couldn't even walk to 1B. The fielder could go into the dugout, get the ball, run over to Howard lying on the grass in pain and tag him out... But he can't because there's a rule about what happens when the ball goes out of play.
Yes, yes, last night the runner would have scored... But in a world where Renfroe fields it cleanly, who knows: maybe he's able to throw the runner at 2B out before the run crosses the plate... Not saying it was going to happen but it COULD have happened... and that's why you don't want umpires using discretion.
I get the anger, I do. But this isn't a rule that's been revised like 10 times in the past 10 years. If I had to guess this exact wording has probably been in the rule book for decades and decades. It's not a new rule, or one that's been tinkered with like some NFL rules have been.
It's not hard to imagine that the Rays would have brought in another pitcher to get the save rather than trying to stretch with the guy they had in there if no end seemed to be in sight - from my perch above RF, they still seemed to have bodies in the bullpen, after all. Heck, it's possible that the Zunino at-bat goes differently with a run in.
Of course, I did feel better that it was a two-run homer instead of a single run that won the game.
Now, I think it's a dumb rule. That's altogether different than a bad call/interpretation.
<i>Didn't Vasquez make the agita moot? Or would he not have hit it over the fence had the score been 5-4 instead of tied?,/i>
I don't even think we can say for sure that the Rays wouldn't have scored more in the top of the 13th if Renfroe catches the ball off the wall.
I'd be OK with Andy's slight modification, and it doesn't even have to be discretionary. If a fielder touches the ball and then it goes out of play for an automatic double, then award the guy on first three bases instead of two. If you're going to award the Canseco play a HR, then awarding one more base for the runner on first when the fielder is involved makes sense.
It would almost seem like Sean would have data on this, or? Someone?
I'm initially distrustful, mostly because the colloquial talk of runners scoring from 1st on a ball to the wall highlights how FAST the runner is to be doing so, not how average the runner is to have done so. Or is that impression mistaken?
Maybe not?
I like that suggestion, which reeks of common sense.
-------------
Lassus, I don't have data, either, but my impression is that not scoring from first on a double is really unusual. With two outs, it's really, really, really unusual.
And with a 3-2 count and two outs, he'd have to be gunned down by a mysterious sniper as he was rounding third not to be able to score.
Or even simpler: The runners get two bases on a ground-rule double with less than two out, three bases on a ground-rule double when there are two outs.
I wonder if the author had a brain freeze, or are the fences in RF on average deeper than the ones in LF around the majors?
Primey. Nate wins the thread.
If someone bounces a ball over the monster they deserve all the bases.
eh, my takeaway is this:
the rule is poorly formulated.
this happenstance definitely demonstrates that as written and as events unfolded, it benefitted a poor defensive play, intentional or not.
so here is the solution:
- as before, any ball bouncing in fair territory and over the fence out of play is a ground rule double, all runners given two bases.
- BUT: any ball bouncing in fair territory then touching a fielder before going out of play is treated as a ground rule double PLUS an overthrow error, all runners given an additional base.
QED.
Unless you want to mandate uniform dimensions, all ballparks are going to have their quirks. AFAIC any park whose dimensions and odd features force managers to think is a selling point for diversity.
If it's any consolation, the variations in dimensions today are far less than they were before the rise of the multiplexes. You had foul lines as short as 250', and RF/CF walls as far away as 520'. The Polo Grounds from LF to RF went from 279' to 483' to 258'. Cleveland's League Park was 375', 460' and 290', and so on.
Perfect. The more you remove umpires guessing intent from the rules, the better the rules. (I'd also be fine with this on dropped pop ups, etc.)
* obviously the bullpens being where they are is pure marketing but they are also 80 years old so whatever.
Having said all that YMMV so fair enough. I'd rather have something a bit unusual and different than the same thing in every park. Hell even Tampa I think can be a lot of fun. The infield catwalks are annoying but I like that pop flies are not automatics against the roof backdrop.
I'm going to ask this seriously, but are you trolling us here? I think most baseball fans love Fenway because it is quirky and you get those wall ball doubles(or long singles for slow runners) and you get the 415 foot double in the triangle and those 310 ft HR right down the RF line. Yes, the sight lines are rubbish for most; no, the average American cannot really fit into the smallish seats, etc., but I think the the place is great. I've lived on 3 continents and been to over 100 stadiums for different sporting events worldwide and I think it's great when a venue is unique and the place where it is identifies with it.
Yeah, I didn't see that rule book change? Did they change that around 2004 because the 80 odd years prior to that it wasn't really a thing.
It's as if all non Red Sox fans forgot that this team couldn't catch a break for nearly 90 years and now they get the really odd break and everyone loses their sh*t. What is up with that?
It was a weird play. It benefited the Red Sox. The rule doesn't seem to be fair. The umpires applied the rule as per the rule book. That's it. Move on.
I went on a tour of the Boston Garden (which was a ######## btw) in its final year.
part of the tour included a visit to the high-school quality visitors' locker room. the Lakers once complained that there was no air conditioners in there in a heat wave of a Finals. the tour guide proudly noted that the next game, the Lakers arrived to find several new air conditioners - still in their boxes, as he said that Commissioner Stern had not specified that they also needed to be installed...
They changed it when the Red Sox became Evil Empire, Part Deux.
They've played in a pile of World Series and LCS and won a bunch in the last 20 years.
And they certainly have a bigger footprint than the small-market, fan-less Rays. If Tampa makes the WS again this year, every FOX exec will jump out of their office windows. (Which would be a good thing, obviously, but still.)
Which is dumb, because you can intentionally deflect a ball out of play. Like, with a backhand swipe. Etc.
The interpretations in the umpire’s manual do distinguish between intentional and unintentional deflections:
MLB Umpire Manual
Nope. I get that most love it, but I just don't like a well-hit long line drive to become a single because 100 years ago they couldn't find a large enough land, while a lazy flyball in most stadiums is a homerun there.
And the food sucks, and it's too expensive.
This is addressed in the comments for that story (I had the same thought as you so I checked to see if there was any follow-up) -- the author assumes that most plays at the plate are made to the third base side, i.e., slightly up the line, where the runner is coming from, so the throw from LF on average would be a foot or two shorter than the throw from RF.
This does seem correct, assuming the same average distance of the fielders from the center of home plate..
Wouldn't that be more than offset by the fact rightfielders throw much better than leftfielders (due to the significantly added length on the throw to third, rather than the extra two feet on the throw home)?
Yes, it is. If you look at the article linked, there's a pretty big difference between RF (about 35% of runners score from first on doubles) and LF (about 40%) and the author cites several reasons for this. The extra distance was only mentioned as a secondary counterpoint:
Left fielders tend to have weaker or more inaccurate throwing arms, as well as fielders who might be considered defensively challenged.
...
Doubles to right are hit to the fielder with the best outfield arm traditionally, which probably explains why the percentage drops a bit vs. doubles hit to left. I'll admit I was slightly surprised by the right field numbers, since I thought the distance of the throws would allow for more runners from first to score. Conversely, I thought there would be a smaller number of runners scoring on doubles to left because it's a shorter throw, but this doesn't appear to be the case.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main