IGT Wed Aug 1 Mets @ SF

[Ceetar]

Swan Swan H wrote: The other walk-off loss ended when Pedro Feliciano surrendered a leadoff home run in in the 10th to Scott Hairston.

Jerry! Scott Hairston DESTROYS lefties. Make a switch!

on edit:

Willie! Scott Hairston DESTROYS lefties. Make a switch! This might cost you your job!

[Edgy MD]

Wow, what a series. That last game also featured three hit batsmen in one inning by Oliver Perez and Bazooka Joe Smith (and the Padres still didn't score!).

[Ceetar]

Edgy DC wrote: Wow, what a series. That last game also featured three hit batsmen in one inning by Oliver Perez and Bazooka Joe Smith (and the Padres still didn't score!).

That was Kouzmanoff's 8th HBP that year, of 15. crowding the plate.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy DC wrote: Because Thole was bad. Really, I don't know either.

Josh Thole ain't no J.C. Martin.

[Edgy MD]

Swan Swan H wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: I'm sure the rule is what it is, but why aren't the runners on 2nd and 3rd? That's where they would be were there no interference and Thole got thrown out at first. Because to remove the incentive for the offensive team to commit an intentional interference the remedy is that all runners return to their original bases. Think about a situation where the bases are loaded w/1 out, bottom 9, tie game. Batter hits what looks like an easy 6-4-3 DP but the runner on 1st decides to simply play free safety and "intercepts" the throw to 1st. Yeah he's already out, but without the 'runners return' rule his team wins the game. The umps, in that situation, also have the option to call the batter out when the interference is so obviously intentional - but you get the idea. If they call that a DP it's three out and no runs score anyway. It would never happen to end a game, but if it happens with none out the run from third should score whether it's intentional or not, since they didn't make a play on that runner. I'm not saying it's not the rule, just that I disagree with the reasoning behind it.

Yeah, this scenario doesn't justify the rule. (And any runner who can advance far enough down the line to intercept a relay from second base to first but won't simply just safely touch first is insane beyond Jimmy Piersall levels and needs to be kept far away from baseball diamonds.) Calling the batter out and letting the runners accept their advance to the bases they'd have safely advanced to had the play been successfully and cleanly completed seems to make sense.

The Mets followed up by making the philosophical point moot with a madly courageous double steal, but of course failed to score.

[Frayed Knot]

Edgy DC wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: Swan Swan H wrote: I'm sure the rule is what it is, but why aren't the runners on 2nd and 3rd? That's where they would be were there no interference and Thole got thrown out at first. Because to remove the incentive for the offensive team to commit an intentional interference the remedy is that all runners return to their original bases. Think about a situation where the bases are loaded w/1 out, bottom 9, tie game. Batter hits what looks like an easy 6-4-3 DP but the runner on 1st decides to simply play free safety and "intercepts" the throw to 1st. Yeah he's already out, but without the 'runners return' rule his team wins the game. The umps, in that situation, also have the option to call the batter out when the interference is so obviously intentional - but you get the idea. If they call that a DP it's three out and no runs score anyway. It would never happen to end a game, but if it happens with none out the run from third should score whether it's intentional or not, since they didn't make a play on that runner. I'm not saying it's not the rule, just that I disagree with the reasoning behind it. Yeah, this scenario doesn't justify the rule. (And any runner who can advance far enough down the line to intercept a relay from second base to first but won't simply just safely touch first is insane beyond Jimmy Piersall levels and needs to be kept far away from baseball diamonds.) Calling the batter out and letting the runners accept their advance to the bases they'd have safely advanced to had the play been successfully and cleanly completed seems to make sense. The Mets followed up by making the philosophical point moot with a madly courageous double steal, but of course failed to score.

The example I made up probably doesn't justify the 'runners return' rule on its own because the umps do have the option of calling both runner and batter out, but was merely an example of how intentional interference can occasionally be used to benefit a team if such rules didn't exist. In fact the rule allowing umps to call not just the runner out but the guy behind him also only came about after someone had done just that to win a game. The story I heard involved Brave Joe Aadock who, while running from 2nd to 3rd with one out and bases loaded, simply grabbed the bouncer that his batter hit towards SS and heaved it into the OF. Sure HE was out but the DP was prevented and the run scored. Out of such antics rules are changed.

Back to last night, supposing Thole didn't just merely run in a way where he was hoping to get hit but actually took the trouble to turn around and swat the throw with his hands. If he manages to swat it in the right place the runner can come around from 2nd, hence the return rule.
IOW, the rule makes no distinction between purposely interfering and when a runner, while breaking a rule, just "happens" to get his by a throw accidentally/on purpose.


btw, the only person this rule doesn't apply to is Reggie Jackson. I believe Tommy Lasorda has some opinions on that matter.

[Edgy MD]

If Thole did something that they advance the runners further, that's one thing. But it merely seems fair to allow the runners to remain on the base to which they were advancing uncontested (or indeed, quite possibly had reached) at the point of infraction.

Justice, to my thinking, is thus served, and the universe set to rights.

[metsmarathon]

of course, it's stupid that you have to stay foul there when running to the base. if you stay within the lane the whole time, you never touch first.

[Edgy MD]

Stay Foul was the title Fman's fourth LP --- the double live one.

[Fman99]

Edgy DC wrote: Stay Foul was the title Fman's fourth LP --- the double live one.

Lots of hits on that one, it's the Frampton Comes Alive of cock jokes. I will also admit to using the phrase "Frampton comes alive" in the boudoir at opportune moments.