beerguy55

I would agree...that there's zero evidence. You also don't have the full report...Ohtani's camp has claimed the money was stolen, so we need to see what flushes out. Was the money really transferred without any of Ohtani's knowledge...or was his interpreter a go between for Ohtani's gambling...or something in between. Above you note "Ohtani said"...no, Mizuhara said...part of the problem is interviewers and investigators were hearing what Ohtani "said" from Mizuhara as his translator. I SUSPECT what happened was Ohtani's camp finally got wind (maybe via ESPN confirmation efforts) what Mizuhara was actually saying, and denied it. The more cynical conclusion (and not necessarily wrong) is Ohtani's camp realized their first cut at explaining this was going to go over like a lead fart, so they changed course. Assumes facts not in evidence, and even if an accurate portrayal it's a silly question. First, maybe they don't have an interpreter...or more importantly, an interpreter Ohtani trusts? Second, otherwise you're basically saying "if you've done nothing wrong you don't need a lawyer" or "if you have nothing to hide then let the cops search your car". You know how those work out. Yes, the Dodgers and Ohtani will need to show some transparency eventually, but at this point it's an official investigation and most people won't be able to say much anyway. They don't - there's no evidence here that any baseball gambling occurred, and in fact the statements by third parties categorically say there was none. The issue is that sports betting is illegal in California. And that is the only reason there was a debt to be paid...legal sports betting organizations require the money up front...illegal bookies typically take credit.

Not relevant - does not answer the question posed.

Which is the point I'm getting at. Yes, a "force" - baseball definition - can be removed. The B/R has no such luxury...it's closing time for them too... The B/R can't stay in the batter's box and hit again. He can't stand on home plate while the next batter is up. He MUST go to first base. To rule that he must be tagged between first and home, simply because he's already touched first, is silly. Yup...sort of..B/R may not retreat towards home plate to avoid being tagged - if they do, they're out, dead ball, and runners return TOP. But even in softball B/R could simply stand a few steps from home plate and wait.

Believe me, I understand your position, but don't dismiss the idea out of hand. New information doesn't have to come only from your partners. No, I'm not saying to blindly or openly go with a crowdsourced opinion, all I'm saying is there are many ways for you to obtain new/different information, even if working solo, if you do realize that you, on those rare occasions, laid an egg. Sure, you may want to save face and not appear to be a pushover...and in doing so you can stubbornly stick with a call that everyone, including you, knows is wrong. I'm not talking about a ball that lands three inches foul...I'm talking about a ball that lands three FEET foul (and don't dismiss it...I've seen this called a fair ball...more than once)

The purpose of the rule is to prevent a team from requesting (and being granted) Time while the walked batter is still in the batter's box....they want to keep the ball live until he's taken his award. And none of this documentation uses the word "touch". The walked batter is simply required to "go to" first base. Once BR reaches or acquires first base, even if they miss it, they will have met the requirements for the purposes of an umpire granting Time.

All right, for the purposes of the English language let's say he is "required" to advance to first. Obligated...mandated...ordered...enforced...anything to avoid the "f" word and keep panties from getting into knots. I've always said that for all intents and purposes the B/R going to first is a "force", if not by baseball definition, but by practicality. Are we really suggesting that THIS is the exception? So, let's play this out...B/R reaches and touches first...and for any number of reasons retreats five or six steps to home plate. Now playing action ends...and let's say the ball stays live. We just gonna let the B/R stay there for the next pitch? AND we're going to require a tag of the runner? Are we going to grant Time? He's "required" to be at or beyond first base. Touching the base should be enough, even if he's already been there. Let's get really stupid...You now going to allow a run down between home and first? Because the defense needs to tag him...even though he's not allowed to reach home and the MUST reach first. And now, F1 gets savvy. He just catches the ball and sits on first base...and waits. You really just going to let F1 stay on first and B/R stand 45 feet away until the end of time? The BR is out. And not by abandonment. Yeah, he's not "forced" by baseball definition, be he is by English definition...treat it that way.

I'm not sure you're interpreting the responses correctly...one said you shouldn't call the runner out at all because time was improperly called...others are simply quoting the rule, without remedy/comment on how to enforce it. There's consensus that you can't call the runner out after he's standing on the base. And I think there's consensus that a hypothetical substitute runner can correct the error. I would also argue that the rules and case plays above don't require the B/R to "touch" first base, but to only go to it - which would be consistent with other elements of the rule book that only require a runner to pass/reach a base to acquire it...not to necessarily touch it. In that respect, I think time was properly called, and all systems go. Maybe I'm wrong and maybe you shouldn't call the runner out in the hypothetical of an appeal made before the runner touches the base...but I would say, call the runner out on appeal (provided they haven't touched the base yet), and let the coach protest and see how the chips land. I agree, the problem I think is how does the BU who knows B/R hasn't touched first base yet communicate to the PU who thinks he has. But again, if the rule only requires the runner to pass/reach it, there's no reason to stop the PU from granting time.

There's no real advantage, let alone an unfair one - B/R had every opportunity to touch the base both before and after Time was granted (which was requested by the offense, btw - for whatever weight one might give that). As you said, the B/R can correct his error during a dead ball, and in the OP did so, before the appeal was made. This is not preventative umpiring - this is assisting the player and it should be avoided...in principle, it's no different than telling the defense to appeal the missed base. Preventative umpiring would be overruling the PU's granting of time...and if feasible, doing it as discretely/proactively as possible without giving anything away....ideally before he actually says the word. Perhaps trying to get in a loud and assertive "no, play on" before the PU has a chance to respond?? But I think worst case is a "not yet" after PU says Time...and you might give away the reasoning to a savvy coach, depending on how insistent you have to be to either the PU, or the OC, but c'est la vie...at least you've administered the rules/situation properly.

The rules imply your players must be bi-pedal. The batter's box and catcher's box rules require having "both" feet in (otherwise they'd say "all" feet). I think an ostrich would look pretty cool back there.

Here's the TLDR version... If you have a pitch that is at the same specific grid point 1000 times for each catcher...across dozens of different plate umpires, and potentially a dozen pitchers; and catcher X gets 725 strike calls, and catcher Y gets 400, that's not an issue of any one umpire, or group of umpires, missing a call....that's an issue in how the catcher is presenting/selling/receiving the pitch. Either the catcher is getting strikes that should be balls...or getting balls that should be strikes...or at the very least, is influencing the direction of a borderline pitch that should be called a strike/ball (theoretically) 50% of the time.

It's a correlative exercise...much like you can analyze an umpire's score against the strike zone (accuracy) and their own effective zone (consistency)...if you look at one game you might not have all context (maybe you have a really good/bad framing catcher)...but if you take those scores across all games you get a pretty good measure....now, you take that same mapping across all catchers, and try to make it independent of pitcher or umpire. Even if you determine that all pitches in the "shadow zone" are Schrondinger's Strike, and may be factually a ball or factually a strike, you can still see how the exact same pitch in the exact same location can be rule a strike more with some catchers than others. You take a measure of all pitches on the border of the strike zone (in this case, low), and you can see patterns in how all catchers receive pitches in the same location, independent of umpires, and (usually) independent of pitchers - you're looking at hundreds, if not thousands, of pitches for each zone...and then you can see which ones are called balls and strikes, for all catchers, across all locations/pitchers/umpires. At that point, your catcher is either getting a strike that should have been a ball...or getting a ball that should have been a strike. It doesn't really matter which is right at that point. If you have a pitch that is at the same specific grid point 1000 times...potentially for 120+ different plate umpires, and potentially a dozen pitchers for each catcher... for two different catchers, and catcher x gets 700 strike calls, and catcher Y gets 450, that's not an issue of any one umpire, or group of umpires, missing a call....that's an issue in how the catcher is presenting the pitch to all of the umpires. And it doesn't matter what they should have been called. And from there, the patterns become apparent...some catchers are better/worse than other catchers at framing/receiving...and as such, cost/gain their pitcher strikes, regardless of umpire, or umpire quality. You could even do the same statistical analysis of all catchers receiving in front of the same umpire...you might get a finding of either more strikes, or more balls, as a general finding for that umpire, which might go to how much framing influences that umpire, but even with the "smartest" umpires, you should/will see a difference among catchers who are more, or less, successful. The leg drop issue specifically is about low strikes in general. It makes framing those low strikes easier. And pitchers like to stay at the bottom of the zone, or below the zone if they can get some free strikes. Those are harder pitches to turn into hits...and especially home runs. I'm not sure if this will be location blocked - it's a Sportsnet Canada video showing the difference between Alejandro Kirk and Danny Jansen, and seeing several low (probable) balls called strikes for Kirk, and low (probable) strikes called balls for Jansen - across multiple pitchers and umpires. These corroborate the stats shown above. Analyzing different stances between two Blue Jays’ catchers behind the plate (sportsnet.ca)

There's quite a bit of data on catcher framing - Strikes Gained is the stat you want to look into. And other sites are simply summarizing how borderline pitches end up as either balls or strikes based on the catcher's actions....umpire independent. Statcast Catcher Framing Leaderboard | baseballsavant.com (mlb.com) Zone 18 in particular...the best catchers are approaching two thirds in getting the strike call on low pitches...the worst approach one third. Then it's a matter of seeing which one of these catchers use the knee drop technique. Lots of these guys are doing it even with runners on base (much to the chagrin of those who value blocking pitches over stealing a few strikes)

So, if DC appeals during the dead ball before BR returns to first it's definitely an out. I can't fathom why he waited until BR returned to first base to talk to you about. That's his error. You were right to rule the runner safe at the time of appeal. I also wonder if (ticky tack as it may be) you have BR "overrunning" first and not immediately returning to the base, which would be your call to make without requiring an appeal. The hypothetical pinch runner replaces the runner in all aspects, doesn't he? I'd say if the pinch runner touches first after the original runner misses it, even during a dead ball, you have a correction of the error, I think. eg. BR is rounding third, on a homerun award...he trips, misses third as he falls, and breaks his leg. The pinch runner comes in, touches third, completes the award...this would be allowed, I think. Yes, but what's the remedy...you going to yell "no, time is not granted!" after your partner already called it...if that doesn't telegraph the reasoning you'll have a hard time explaining to your partner without giving up the goods. Not to mention calling "Time" might be a bell that can't be unrung. How do you signal to your partner proactively this weird scenario?

This - it's all for the benefit of selling to the umpire. 🙃 It will be irrelevant in MLB by 2025 I suspect.

Well, if they faint they won't be able to throw for a while.

This is so important, and I wish it would be communicated more at all levels - you almost need a one day seminar...Why Does This Rule Exist? Umpires, coaches, players and parents may attend. This was the crux of the George Brett pine tar protest. AL president had to clarify that the intent of the rule was to reduce costs, not to address some competitive advantage (there was none) to having too much pine tar on the bat. A bit "cute" in retrospect now that 40 years later a MLB baseball almost never sees a second batter, let alone a second inning.

When in doubt, nuke it.

It's amazing how much they can accomplish when they focus on it. We had a rec league game where the ump didn't show up, but we found one volunteer willing to do it (OK, gun to my head I would have, but I was away coach and this is home's responsibility) - he's a fine ump as far as us volunteers go, he'd done it many times, but this time wasn't expecting it, so not only did either team have any real equipment for him (there was a spare catcher's mask) - he was wearing shorts and sandals. At our plate meeting he pulled in both catchers and pitchers and said to all of us "if a single ball hits me I walk" - he was, I believe, the safest umpire I've ever experienced...not a whiff of a WP or PB all game....and somehow not even a foul ball hit him.

Are there seams on your arm...that's always a fun conversation topic too. I can't wait to see that wonderful shade of yellow that follows the purple.

It's like trying to bluff the SH*#tiest poker player in the world. Just....don't.

I didn't care what the count was...I had two rules for my pitchers. 1. Not down the middle 2. Close enough to the plate to make the batter think about it. And I'd let number 1 slide in certain situations. But nothing drove me more nuts than a pitch that a batter never had to worry about. At least make it look like it could be a strike.

Since you are only out by judgment* I've always assumed the rules give the benefit of the doubt to the runner who either does not know (or is not sure of) the umpire's judgment, or for those cases where maybe an umpire changes his mind about said judgment. If the runner has simply continued running the bases then things are easy to correct...he keeps his base if he wasn't out and he just leaves the field if he was. But if he were to leave the field, that's a bell that can't be unrung. The rules, particularly abandonment, incentivize the "retired" runners to stay on and around the bases. This leaves the defense in a conundrum from time to time, especially if they are left guessing to whether or not the out they believe/"know" has been completed has been judged the same by the umpire. So, even on a very loudly declared IFF, a B/R can still run...even though they have no reason to run - they're either out or it's foul....unless the umpire(s) determine it wasn't catchable with "ordinary effort" and change their mind....... *I'm open to being corrected here, but I can't think of a situation where umpire judgment is not involved in calling a player out, even indirectly (ie. by rule you're out if the batted ball is caught...if the umpire judges it was caught)

What's the FED/OBR approach to a ball hit into the field from a neighboring field - let's say in a similar circumstance - as F5 gloves the ball a foul ball from the field behind comes into the field of play...either everyone screaming heads up as it approaches the field...or, nobody says anything and the ball lands in the infield as F5 gloves the ball. I'm thinking it could, in principle, be a similar safety concern situation and maybe both be handled the same way. Otherwise, this is one of the few times in baseball I like a "do over".

Besides the fact that in your example the runner who should have known better is the one who committed INT...you're making an assessment based on strategy, and what is or is not a smart baseball play. Nothing in the rules is preventing R1 from running - an IFF is a live ball and runners may advance at their own peril - and if he gets lucky and F4 doesn't make the catch then he has a head start in advancing to 2nd or even 3rd...which he is allowed (not forced) to do. So, yeah, non sequitur....it does not follow....with a bit of strawman and false equivalence thrown in. The OP addresses a situation that is dictated by rule, not strategy or even common sense. The batter cannot be out, because it cannot be an IFF, by rule. Therefore, there is no reason for the b/r to think they are out, nor to leave his base. You may as well yell offside or unnecessary roughness. Going back to a more common example that does happen - again, U3K with one out and R1/R3. Batter runs...his coach(es) is yelling "run to first, he dropped the ball"...F2 is confused to making a throw down to first base - R3 scores as a result. This will NEVER be called INT. Even if you had proof that it was a set play, this will not be called INT. (I'd probably complain to the league about sportsmanship, especially at development/rec levels, but that's a different conversation) The fundamental difference is you can only ever be called out by judgment...but there are many situations where you cannot be out by any judgment because the rules prohibit it....you are safe, by rule.

non sequitur