Did he lean?

Changing the topic!  The vicinity play evolved because of the caveman take outs around 2nd base on DP.  Hal McCrae in particular was a beast on this. 

 

With the slides toned down and the replay evolution the calls got tighter around the bag. Related to this are plays at the plate.  I have never understood why it was OK to destroy a catcher at the plate.  Why not crush first basemen?  Or drop kick on steals?  In any event the contact has been significantly limited making it possible for these plays to result in ballet around second without the 2B being nailed to the left field fence.

 

As for HBP - I would stipulate that if MLB had any desire to change the way the rule is interpreted they could do it.  They have occasionally adjusted the field, ball and strike zone to add or detract offense for example.  I do not think this event will cause that to happen.

Oh my.  That's even worse. 

 

You started by advocating stricter adherence to the letter of the rule and requiring more effort by batters to avoid pitches.  That is a defensible position to take, and I respect it even though I disagree with it.

 

However, now you are suggesting total lawlessness by saying umpires should call a certain play one way most of the time, but change how they call it depending on the situation.  If umpires had a prime directive, it would prohibit exactly this sort of selective enforcement to affect game outcomes. 

 

You offered a few examples of umpires calling certain kinds of plays in a manner not strictly consistent with the letter of the rules. Players and coaches accept this because they value consistency and predictability.

 

What you're suggesting now is contrary both to rules and consistency.

 

LOL. I acknowledge it's a slippery slope. My position (and I know many will disagree) is it needs to be called as written. I still think in most instances and umpire can use sound judgment to differentiate a guy leaning into a pitch or letting a hanging curveball graze his jersey without moving, verses, that was gas and he had no time to move, or that 2 seamer had more run than the hitter expected and it grazed him.

 

I dont think going by the book here is going to drastically tilt the advantage to the pitcher. You are still going to have HBP's. If the rule is called as written, the pitch is ruled a ball, which favors the hitter anyhow, though to a lesser degree. Pitchers are still going to run fastballs in, still have the risk of it getting too much of the plate, and still running the risk of a HBP because hitters are going to generally try to avoid a fastball too far in, or not have time to react and still be within the rules because of that. Most inside pitching is going to be fastballs, if its a LHP v Righty or vice versa, a hard breaker in (and definitely excusable when a hard slider breaks more than you think and catches u on the foot). For the rest, maybe a show me curve/1st pitch for a strike curve, a changeup every once in a while. I just dont see it being that drastic in gimping hitting and it would prevent the cheapy's, but thats just me. They've raised and lowered mound heights, they have changed seam heights and how tightly balls are wound, they have widended strike zones, and all of those are going to have much more of an effect on the pitcher/hitter dynamic.

 

And I am ALL for consistency. I want it to be consistently enforced. It is not. We all know that call is rare, but it has been made. I guess I am trying to say, it would have been understood if this was the rare time it happened, by both dugouts. It seems like a lot of it is umpires telling themselves, "i am not going there, it isn't worth it" and it slides. But like I said, lets not pretend to start there is not selective enforcement already. I gave two examples.

 

Why is it fair to be a pitcher who has walked six through four innings, and in the fifth you make a perfect pitch on the corner and it is called a ball, and you have announcers and coaches tell you, "well, when you have been all over the place all game, dont expect that call." Or why is it fair that your catcher sets up outside and you miss your target by a lot, but the ball still crosses the inner third at the thighs and it is called a ball (this happens a lot)? Or you can throw a strike but the catcher misses it or drops it and it is called a ball (happens frequently).

 

I watched a HS championship game on TV recently, every player on one team had one of those new elbow guards. Elbows are going to keep leaning and with improvements in technology, the protection is going to get even more common. I just think something needs to be done now to offset that. You know for a fact if Tabata did not have that protection on his elbow he is jumping out of the way there.

It's a shame this happened.  It stinks for Scherzer.  Was the ball off the plate?  Yeah it was. Should the ump have called HBP, probably.  When I watch the video in slow motion, if Tabata had simply left his left arm where it was, the pitch would have sailed 6 inches under it.  There is no question he dipped his elbow in order to be hit by the ball.  Would he have done it without the elbow guard on?  I kind of doubt it.  Getting hit on the tip of the elbow would have hurt like crazy.  To be honest, looking at it closely, I don't think the ball would have even hit him in the elbow if not for the guard.  The guard comes down below the elbow and the pitch just barely nicked that.

 

Does this situation call for a rules change?  I don't think so.  It's just one of those things.  If Scherzer does not lose that pitch inside, he most likely has a perfect game (you never know whether Tabata would have gotten a hit if he didn't get hit).  If Tabata doesn't dip that elbow into the pitch, he may have a perfect game.

 

All these things are the reason there have only been 22 Perfect Games thrown in the history of professional baseball.  It is the hardest thing to do for a reason.  It strikes us all that much harder because he lost this one with 2 outs and 2 strikes on the batter in the 9th inning. Ohhhhhh so close.

As mentioned above, protection is going to be more prevalent in the future. Change the rules so that if a batter gets hit on his protection, it is a ball, not a HBP. 

Would you consider the batter's helmet and cup part of his protection?  And what about the guy who turns so it misses his protection on purpose in effort to get on base - is that a ball?  Not sure I'd want to get in the box if they did as you suggest...

Haha. I think that may be taking things a little too far Red. I can certainly see many instances where that would not be even remotely fair to the hitter, but it would likely discourage most of the gear.

Bballman, it would be an arduous task for anyone, but out of all of the perfect games thrown, if one went back and watched every pitch, in how many of them do u think a pitch got a little too far in and the hitter avoided it? And if not that, how many pitches missed in by more than a few inches and easily could have been Tabata'd into but weren't? I'm guessing most of them.

Although the ball is not a strike, I just hate seeing a batter just stand there knowing it is going to bounce off body armor. 

And no, wasn't talking about helmet, cup, etc

just trying to use a little common sense, that's all. 

It is reasonable to expect as face masks, elbow guards and over time even vests gain wider use that this will result in a real change in batter behavior.  If batters no longer fear injury from HBP it makes it increasingly likely that hitters will more aggressively crowd the plate creating much less operating room for pitchers.

 

Barry Bonds was one of the earliest guys with the elbow guard and IMO it made him a much tougher out when he started wearing it.  I thought then it had the potential to be a game changer but it has taken much longer for the gear to gain acceptance than I anticipated.  It took about 20 years for batting helmets to become the norm but I think the body armour is at that tipping point where players coming out of the minors will be wearing it on a widespread basis.

 

Mr. Tabata might end up being the poster child for MLB considering change in this area but I do not think we are anywhere near there yet.  It will take some real complaining by managers and players before that happens.

I'm just going to be semi-blunt here. RGDeuce, what you have said has no basis in reality and you strike me as someone who really does not understand how baseball works. You say that umpires are the ones responsible for enforcing things differently than written. We're not. The participants have decided through time that some things mean certain things and others mean other things.

 

 

Not even close. The vicinity play evolved and then devolved because of the culture within baseball. Umpires didn't decide that they were going to call it and then undecide later.

 

 

Apples and oranges. A strike is different than a pitch in the box. A batter could do a barrel roll to get out of the way, but if it's a strike, it's a strike. And here's where you contradict yourself (in a manner different than what has been already pointed out):

 

 

So, which is it? Is it called the same way almost all the time, or is it not?

 

 

No, it doesn't. Not for pitches on the plate.

 

 

Because the culture wants it called that way. If a catcher butchers a borderline pitch and I give it to him, I'm probably tossing someone--not necessarily then, but probably later when something else similar happens and I call it the same and piss off the offense even more than what they were, or call it differently and piss off the defense. And the kicker:

 

 

No, that didn't happen at all, and when I hear someone say something as asinine as "Umpires don't call the high strike," that tells me they have no clue as to what the strike zone is and how it is called. Umpires have no say as to how the rules get enforced, and even less say at the non-professional levels. We call it as the people who sign our checks want it, and that's the way the people on the field want it.

 

LOL. Wow Matt. I don't understand how baseball works? I'm not going to be the guy who whips his c--k out here to justify my experience, people I have been around or knowledge of the game. Because I don't understand how some of you umpires operate (who the hell does?), I have no understanding how baseball works. Ok.

 

-Re: vicinity play: Tell me exactly about the culture within baseball. Explain this to me to help me better understand. The way I see it, it was never called, it was in many times ridiculous. I started seeing things enforced with takeout slides and guys going too wide, and still, the old vicinity stuff was still happening. Now you actually will see on occasion and umpire say they weren't on the bag, but it is still very common to see it the old way. Who decided to start making those calls when you say "umpires didn't decide?" A higher power? Then why is it still prevalent now?

 

Re: apples to oranges. Yes, a strike is different than a ball. I was giving examples of HBP being called as codified in the rulebooks, but it not being common. Ive also seen hands over the inside corner get hit and it is called a ball.

 

Re: consistency. Maybe you misread what I wrote. I said I like consistency and I want it consistently enforced. I think it is a rule that should be followed and followed on a consistent basis. I dont want it to be consistently ignored.

 

Re: catcher setting up outside. Come on dude. This happened to me more than just a few times in college. You see it all the time in the bigs on TV. Not all umpires do it, but there are quite a few who do.

 

re: dropped strikes. What culture wants it called that way? is that the same culture that you think calls the missed location strikes? And I am not talking borderline pitches. If my catcher is butchering my borderline pitches by dropping them, framing them like an idiot, or catching them and having the momentum of his glove out of the zone, I am pulling him aside between innings or after the game and letting him know. I don't expect those calls, but if i get them, great. There is nothing borderline about a pitch on the outer third just above the knees that gets dropped and called a ball.

 

For your last comment, I specifically remember a particular article that discussed how MLB got their umpires together in the offseason and placed an emphasis on calling the high strike how it is spelled out in the rule book. I specifically remember reading about them putting hitters in boxes with live pitching, and putting white medical tape on their bodies where the top of the strike zone is to help them gauge/adjust where this was. I am having a hard time finding the specific article right now, but this article, last paragraph, references baseball wanting them to call the strike as it is laid out, and it sounds like about the time I remember reading about the tape.

 

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_...one-2016-report-says

 

What is asinine about saying umpires don't call the high strike? When balls fly just above the belt and aren't called, that is not calling the high strike, is it not? It's getting called more now, but I still see that. I dont ever recall the top of the strike zone being the belt in the rulebook. You say you guys have no say on how the rules are enforced, but why will an umpire call a ball two inches above the belt a ball, but give a pitcher 2-3 inches off the black? The only defense to that is they are judgment calls and poor judgment was used, because that is certainly not calling it how it is codified and certainly not consistent with the guy who is doing the game behind the plate in the next day's game.

I've already answered all of this. You don't like it because you don't get it.

Yikes. Have a nice day, sir.

Yes, he dipped his elbow.  If I were the hitter, ,I would have done the exact same thing.  I would do anything to get on in that situation