2019-20 MLB Hot Stove Thread...

Turd Ferguson said:

Who is the stat nerd? Right or left-handed batters can run inside the baseline to the 45 foot line (see where the lane clearly starts) and by that point you have to move outside the foul line into the three foot lane until your last step or stride to the base. Turner clearly had both feet out of the lane all the way. Benefit goes to defense. Also when the first baseman is looking for that throw he would have been staring right through Turner and couldn't stretch out the way a first baseman normally would. May have made a difference. Who knows? So benefit protects defense there. Sorry you don't like the rule.

Click to expand...

Ok. Now I know you are full of shit.

The throw came from the third base line. Turner didn’t block his view at all.

DistrictDeacon said:

Then why don’t they call out every single runner who touches the grass?

Click to expand...

DistrictDeacon said:

Ok. Now I know you are full of shit.

The throw came from the third base line. Turner didn’t block his view at all.

Click to expand...

I haven't watched the replay. Even if you are right that the throw was far enough up the line (which I'm sure you are I haven't watched the replay) it doesn't matter. You hate judgment calls. Well that's why this rule is in place. Turner was so far out of the lane the whole way and he hit the first baseman's glove. It's pretty straightforward. Whether you think he was safe or not all that is just more conjecture and judgment.

if anyone is full of shit it is Joe Buck who keeps talking about things that aren't relevant to the rule.

Turd Ferguson said:

I haven't watched the replay. Even if you are right that the throw was far enough up the line (which I'm sure you are I haven't watched the replay) it doesn't matter. You hate judgment calls. Well that's why this rule is in place. Turner was so far out of the lane the whole way and he hit the first baseman's glove. It's pretty straightforward. Whether you think he was safe or not all that is just more conjecture and judgment.

if anyone is full of shit it is Joe Buck who keeps talking about things that aren't relevant to the rule.

Click to expand...

By rule, he was allowed to be where he was when he hit the glove. That’s all that should matter.

DistrictDeacon said:

Then why don’t they call out every single runner who touches the grass?

Click to expand...

DistrictDeacon said:

By rule, he was allowed to be where he was when he hit the glove. That’s all that should matter.

Click to expand...

Have you read the rule? That's not what the rule says at all. The rule says you can exit the running lane on the last step or stride. Not be out of the lane the whole way. If you run out of the lane and interfere with the fielder catching the ball then it is interference. It's fine you don't like the rule but he ran outside the lane the entire way and there was interference with the catch. It's pretty straightforward. The purpose is to take judgment out of the equation as much as possible. Turner should have run where he was supposed to.

It doesn't matter but even if you think he would have been safe, the interference led to runners advancing an extra base, which also shouldn't happen. It's just the rule.

Here's a good picture. You can see that the ball is passed the glove and Turner had already hit the glove prior to his foot coming down on first. What does this mean? It means that the ball beat him and he would have been out without the interference.

I didn't see the play. If Turner ran on the infield side of the first base line and impeded the first baseman's ability to complete the defensive play he is out due to interference. The Cubs seemed to make a habit of interfering this season. Discussed and analyzed. It's the rule. No interpretation required.

Seemed like a completely unnecessary call. The throw wasn’t altered by his running path and was 5 feet off target. Whether this was ‘by the book’ or not, it was a terrible throw from the pitcher and he was rewarded for it.

DistrictDeacon said:

Then why don’t they call out every single runner who touches the grass?

Click to expand...

IckerDeac said:

Seemed like a completely unnecessary call. The throw wasn’t altered by his running path and was 5 feet off target. Whether this was ‘by the book’ or not, it was a terrible throw from the pitcher and he was rewarded for it.

Click to expand...

Fair points but it wasn't an unnecessary call. The throw beat Turner and also runners advanced extra bases on the interference so you can't say it was unnecessary. Umpires don't get to decide which rules to enforce and which not to, and when to enforce them and when not to. You see how much people seem to hate umpires already. Imagine if they had the ability to ignore rules when they "judged" them to be unnecessary.

It's fair I suppose to say you don't like the rule, but you can't criticize the umpires for enforcing it. It is their job and they enforced it properly. also the throw wasn't that far off. It would have been caught if Turner didn't hit the glove. However, this rule certainly favors the defense. Some rules favor the offense. It's just the way it is. No one is pointing out that if Turner had run to first how you are supposed to there wouldn't have been interference. He would have been safe or (likely) out. You can't say for certain that if Turner had both feet in the running lane and (as the rule allows) stepped toward the base with his last stride that the ball wouldn't have been caught. And the ball certainly beat Turner. So that's why the rule errs to the defense.

I'll also throw this out there for the coaches, players, commentators and fans:
The hands are not part of the bat.
Ties do not go to the runner.
The coach doesn't get to decide whether a balk is enforced or not.
You don't have to "break the wrist" (ouch) to call a strike on a check swing.

Also I meant to add that it doesn't matter about the throw being altered. The rule doesn't have to do with the throw but rather the fielder attempting to catch the throw. That's another baseball myth.

Given Turner had a right to be where he was two steps from the bag and we agree what he did 45 feet down the line didn’t alter the throw, do you agree it is reasonable to assume the play would have ended the same if Turner has tracked legally down the line? This is why it feels unnecessary. I get if the catcher fielded and had to step up the line to make the throw but that didn’t happen here.

IckerDeac said:

Given Turner had a right to be where he was two steps from the bag and we agree what he did 45 feet down the line didn’t alter the throw, do you agree it is reasonable to assume the play would have ended the same if Turner has tracked legally down the line? This is why it feels unnecessary. I get if the catcher fielded and had to step up the line to make the throw but that didn’t happen here.

Click to expand...

Yes, I think there is a chance that it would have been different. If Turner had been where he was supposed to be running up the line his last stride would have taken his foot to the middle to outer half of the bag. Most of his body would have been to the foul side of the bag. There is like a three foot difference in positioning there. I think there is a decent chance that the ball is caught. And since the ball beat him (see pics above) he would have been out. (It still doesn't matter as the rule is the rule...just answering your question.)

No one can say for sure which is why the rule is the way it is. Since Turner clearly ran outside the running lane you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. The throw could have been a bit better but it was good enough to be caught "true throw."

Also, your given is incorrect. Turner didn't have a "right" to be there. Nothing in the rulebook gives him a right to be anywhere except between the two lines until his last step or stride. So no, he didn't have a right to be there. People saying that are incorrect.

The sad thing is "fans" just like to berate umpires. It's gotten really bad. Everyone is complaining about the umpire's "judgment" but everything about the rule is to limit what the umpire actually has to judge. Turner was out of the lane all the way and interfered with the catch. Easy call.

Didn’t the ball hit him on his last stride? And how far to the inside of the bag is he allowed on that last stride?

Turd Ferguson said:

Yes, I think there is a chance that it would have been different. If Turner had been where he was supposed to be running up the line his last stride would have taken his foot to the middle to outer half of the bag. Most of his body would have been to the foul side of the bag. There is like a three foot difference in positioning there. I think there is a decent chance that the ball is caught. And since the ball beat him (see pics above) he would have been out. (It still doesn't matter as the rule is the rule...just answering your question.)

No one can say for sure which is why the rule is the way it is. Since Turner clearly ran outside the running lane you have to give the benefit of the doubt to the defense. The throw could have been a bit better but it was good enough to be caught "true throw."

Also, your given is incorrect. Turner didn't have a "right" to be there. Nothing in the rulebook gives him a right to be anywhere except between the two lines until his last step or stride. So no, he didn't have a right to be there. People saying that are incorrect.

The sad thing is "fans" just like to berate umpires. It's gotten really bad. Everyone is complaining about the umpire's "judgment" but everything about the rule is to limit what the umpire actually has to judge. Turner was out of the lane all the way and interfered with the catch. Easy call.

Click to expand...

It is certainly a judgement call. That’s why it couldn’t be reviewed and why the Nats couldn’t protest.

He was exactly where he was allowed to be on his last stride and where he would have been regardless of where he was 85 feet before then.

Maybe baseball needs to add the "safety base" at first. Another base directly at the end of the running lane ( completely in foul territory) so the batter doesn't have to cut to his left. Fielder can only use the base in fair territory.

DistrictDeacon said:

It is certainly a judgement call. That’s why it couldn’t be reviewed and why the Nats couldn’t protest.

He was exactly where he was allowed to be on his last stride and where he would have been regardless of where he was 85 feet before then.

Click to expand...

You don't read very well. I said the rule is intended to limit the umpire's judgment. Of course it is judgment. And also what you are saying doesn't matter. The rule is the rule. If the runner is outside the line before the last stride (which he clearly was) and the first baseman is interfered with while making the catch (which he clearly was) then it is RLI. I'm not sure why you are still arguing. The things you are saying are not contradicting what I'm saying or what the rule says or how it was properly applied. You apparently don't like the rule but that doesn't really matter either. This was textbook and an easy call. Your personal feelings about it are not really relevant.

Will MLB look at the "out of baseline" rule for close plays at first that don't involve contact? That is, does a runner gain an advantage that makes him safe by inches by taking the direct, inside the basepath route to first, rather than the legal route which requires him to move right into foul territory then make the last step cut to his left to touch the base which is in fair territory?

By the book application of the rule might have changed the outcome of some of the bang-bang plays at first where the batter was declared safe by inches. If he wasn't in the proper basepath, should have been out by this rule?

IckerDeac said:

Didn’t the ball hit him on his last stride? And how far to the inside of the bag is he allowed on that last stride?

Click to expand...

Well he hit the glove. Maybe the ball hit him as well I didn't really look for that. Either way it doesn't matter when it happened. People seem caught up on when the contact occurred. It just doesn't matter. He ran out of the running lane and the fielder was impeded from catching the ball. It was really clear cut. I saw it live and said that's interference. If Turner had run where he was supposed to and there was contact or whatever it would have been ignored. It's really simple. This play is pretty common really and isn't all that controversial. You just have idiot commentators and idiot fans that don't know the rules.

Deaconblue said:

Will MLB look at the "out of baseline" rule for close plays at first that don't involve contact? That is, does a runner gain an advantage that makes him safe by inches by taking the direct, inside the basepath route to first, rather than the legal route which requires him to move right into foul territory then make the last step cut to his left to touch the base which is in fair territory?

By the book application of the rule might have changed the outcome of some of the bang-bang plays at first where the batter was declared safe by inches. If he wasn't in the proper basepath, should have been out by this rule?

Click to expand...

He wasn't out of the baseline, he was out of the running lane. First base is different than other bases and there is a specific rule for it. For other bases you establish your own line to the bag, not at first. To answer your question you are not necessarily out for being outside the running lane, there has to be interference with the first baseman. You are out for the interference. Bangers at first don't usually involve interference. So no.

Furthermore, people are fond of saying "the runner has the right to be there" or "a right to a direct line to the bag" etc. Actually deference generally goes to the defense in baseball. The runner has to leave the baseline (or even the running lane) to avoid interfering with a fielder fielding a ball, or a fielder in possession of the ball. By rule the defensive team has more of a "right" to space and ability to make a play than a runner has just because he happens to be running to the bag. This situation is not all that different than many other similar rules.

Turd Ferguson said:

He wasn't out of the baseline, he was out of the running lane. First base is different than other bases and there is a specific rule for it. For other bases you establish your own line to the bag, not at first. To answer your question you are not necessarily out for being outside the running lane, there has to be interference with the first baseman. You are out for the interference. Bangers at first don't usually involve interference. So no.

Furthermore, people are fond of saying "the runner has the right to be there" or "a right to a direct line to the bag" etc. Actually deference generally goes to the defense in baseball. The runner has to leave the baseline (or even the running lane) to avoid interfering with a fielder fielding a ball, or a fielder in possession of the ball. By rule the defensive team has more of a "right" to space and ability to make a play than a runner has just because he happens to be running to the bag. This situation is not all that different than many other similar rules.

Click to expand...

By the reasoning in the last paragraph, should first basemen be playing more vertical and occupying more of the bag? That way on those close plays, there would be a greater chance of the runner contacting the fielder and interfering with the catch. That is, instead of having a toe against the second base side of first base, the fielder puts his foot across the bulk of the top of first base. If the runner hits him and he flinches and misses or drops the ball, batter out. Interference.