chasfh

Well, this was inevitable, wasn’t it? I debated whether to put this in the Election Fraud thread, because it does relate.

It would be really unusual for a bat to be hanging around the playing area of a major league stadium without anyone noticing it or play being stopped to deal with it.

This is only the second time in history this specific situation occurred in history: (1) Tigers take a five-plus run lead, then (2) lose the lead to go down two-plus runs, then (3) retake the lead, but (4) end up losing the game: July 19, 2008 at the Orioles: https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL200807190.shtml June 25, 1934 at the A’s: https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/PHA/PHA193406250.shtml That 1934 game was extra special because between (2) and (3), we tied the game, then went down a run before retaking the two-run lead.

The answer is also in the Umpire Manual. Interpretation #78, titled “Ball Strikes Bird or Animal,” reads: If a batted or thrown ball strikes a bird in flight or other animal on the playing field, the ball is considered alive and in play, the same as if it had not touched the bird or animal. If a pitched ball strikes a bird in flight or other animal on the playing field, the pitch is nullified and play shall be resumed with the previous count. So in the Randy Johnson scenario, the umpire nullifies the pitch entirely and the count simply reverts to whatever it was before. No pitch recorded, no ball or strike added, no dead ball award to runners. Just wipe it off the books and go again. After a moment of silence, of course. The closest numbered Rule in the Book this interpretationt probably draws from conceptually would be Rule 8.01(c): “Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.” Me, I’m just trying to imagine how a pitched ball could strike any “other animal”.

😉

Javy just millimeters from the most amazing catch you’ve ever seen a shortstop make of a scorching line drive.

Sin-sin-NAT-tuh

But bullies sure do respect folks who know how to fight back. Funny how that works, huh?

Nice piece in MLBTR:

I know, right? I guess their population explosion is all homegrown.

Ahh, it’s just sour grapes. They’re learning that undermining democracy can cut both ways, not just one.

I'm a little surprised Japan is not on the less-than-1% map.

Always a big favorite of mine, although I prefer the actual Nielsen map much more.

They’ll quit taking money when you quit taking money.

The rule governing batted balls lodging inside a player’s uniform is not explicitly covered in the Major League Rules document, but in the Major League Baseball Umpire Manual, which offers further interpretation of rules deemed not explicit enough to cover a given situation such as this. That was the case here. This play was covered in the umpire manual under Rules Interpretation #6, Ball Going Into Player’s Uniform: If a batted or thrown ball inadvertently goes inside a player or coach’s uni- form, lodges in the catcher’s face mask or paraphernalia, or is intentionally placed inside a player’s uniform (e.g., in a pants pocket), the umpire shall call “Time.” The umpire will, using common sense and fair play, place all runners in such a manner that, in the umpire’s judgment, will nullify the action of the ball going out of play. That being said, if the umpire determines that the player placed the ball in his uniform intentionally for the purpose of deceiving a base runner, the umpire will place all runners at least one base (or more if warranted, in the umpire’s judgment in order to nullify the action of the ball being put out of play) from the base they originally occupied. In no case may any outs be recorded on such play. For the purposes of stopping play and ruling the ball dead, it doesn’t matter whether the lodging of the ball within the uniform is intentional. The only way intention factors into this interpretation is the decision to move the runners up a base (lodging is intentional: yes; lodging is unintentional: umpire discretion).

Ending a Yordan Alvarez segment, Brian Kenny/MLB Now did a twitter poll on their show yesterday asking viewers who they thought the most underrated players in baseball today are, and the first two responses were Dingler.

By winning close games and losing blowouts?

Imagine what he’s going to be like when he gets his home run stroke.

That’’s the crux of the old hits vs walks thing.

Where’s the pitcher in this old lineup construction?

This is the kind of thing a terrorist state does.

I think they are capable of parsing out a ruling that allows Texas and overturns Virginia through their shadow docket, and willing to do it, too, if they calculate the political consequences to their benefactor to be minimal enough.

So, the closest analog I could find throughout history was Dexter Fowler 2014 with a 29-20-30-20 split: Fowler is the only other qualified hitter in history with at least 20% of their starting lineup plate appearances in each of the top four batting slots. Going back into history, Freddie Lindstrom came really close in 1926 with a 19-24-32-25 split: As did Max Carey in 1917 with his 34-17-21-29: I'm actually surprised there were any this close back in the old days, since I would think that managers were more plug and play about slotting good hitters into particular batting slots.

I wonder how common it is that a player has had so many PAs in a season split as evenly among the top four spots of the batting order as this (24-24-23-30)? That's got to be super rare, maybe even unique in history. I'm going to try to find out just to scratch my own itch on it.

Oh, right, I wouldn’t want this particular Court to weigh in on it, either. I’m talking about SCOTUS’s role in this on a theoretical basis.