MLB Pennant Races

Congrats to the Nats!  A true underdog season.  I saw them play twice this year, and they did not resemble the team I watched last night.   I was staring at the game 7 box score this morning and their lineup.   It is just not a scary lineup throughout, but boy did they get timely hits throughout the playoffs.  Scherzer was masterful in his mediocrity (which is still pretty darn good!) as he didn't yield more than 2 runs, and kept them in the game.  Everybody knew Scherzer was struggling to find the zone and couldn't get ahead of hitters but somehow he minimized the damage and left a lot of Astros runners on base.  Greinke was unbelievable.   You hate to see a SP pitch like that and not get the win.  Baseball can be cruel.

No doubt once the celebration is over, the Nats will turn their attention to the business of baseball.  They've got some tough decisions to make.   They'll be fine.  

PS...One last thought...I'm wondering what Bryce Harper and Superagent Scott Boras are thinking this morning.  For the superagent it is about money but for the player I think the ring means a lot to them.   Why else would 40+ grown men of all ages storm the field, hug each other, in some cases kiss each other, jump up and down, and act like little kids after winning the World Series.  

I am still in shock and I am a Nat's fan.  I thought the Nat's were toast until Rendon blasted the HR in the 7th followed by Kendrick's 2 run shot off the right pole.  Wow!  Just wow!   The runs added in the 8th and 9th were just icing.

I was surprised that Hinch never brought Cole in.   I know he preferred to bring him in at the beginning of an inning and not in the middle with traffic on the bases, but had he done so it might have given Houston a chance.  Greinke was just cruising and I could see him going the entire game.

The baseball gods must have been smiling on the Nationals. Unbelievable that they were able to win 5 must win games in the post season. 

Harper who?

What a crazy moment it was when Greinke had Soto struck out, but didn't get the strike call. The ensuing walk changed the entire game. I thought it was absurd to take Greinke out at that moment. He had what, 75 pitches? He was still mystifying Nats batters and they were getting increasingly frustrated, which made for short at bats. 

So the really bad non call of strike three (and I agree with others how bad the home late umpiring was) resulted in a really bad manager decision to yank Greinke. Changed the whole game.

Rob Kremer posted:

What a crazy moment it was when Greinke had Soto struck out, but didn't get the strike call. The ensuing walk changed the entire game. I thought it was absurd to take Greinke out at that moment. He had what, 75 pitches? He was still mystifying Nats batters and they were getting increasingly frustrated, which made for short at bats. 

So the really bad non call of strike three (and I agree with others how bad the home late umpiring was) resulted in a really bad manager decision to yank Greinke. Changed the whole game.

Agreed yanking Greinke was the key decision in the game and the series.  I thought it was crazy given the one run lead, his incredible command, his pitch count, and Cole in the wings.  They were set up.  Disagree that this particular game wasn't well called behind the plate.  I thought it was actually exceptionally well called other than one or two calls, the Soto call being the most egregious. 

The Detroit Tigers 2014 rotation:
Justin Verlander - 2017 World Series champ
Rick Porcello - 2018 World Series champ
David Price - 2018 World Series champ
Max Scherzer - 2019 World Series champ
Anibal Sanchez - 2019 World Series champ

https://twitter.com/bradgalli/...757232008839168?s=12

Well, I didn't have a dog in the fight so hoped for an epic seven game battle.  If anything, I tend to favor the underdog when my team isn't in it and I really like the blue collar bulldog that Scherzer is.  But there is a lot to like on both squads.  So many great story lines and different personalities.  Listenting to post-game player interviews, sounds like there was a real TEAM thing going on with the Nats, but again, I think both squads had that.  Great to see... not always the case with loaded championship teams.  All in all, it was a pretty darn good series, although most of the games generally were not close at the end.  It's just a shame that the umpiring behind the plate, at least the last few games, was really not good and arguably had too much of an impact on the results of several at-bats, among other things.

Wechson, I saw at least 8-10 very bad ball-strike calls last night that were confirmed bad not only by K-zone but by the straight down camera angle and the player reactions.  Son and I were discussing hitting before the game and he made the point how good most MLB players' eyes are for the zone - that when they react with any degree of animation, they are right nine times out of ten.

Yeah, Fenway, my wife commented post-game - she still can't understand why a bunch of grown men act that way after winning  

Congratulations Nats and fans! 

I'm wondering what Bryce Harper and Superagent Scott Boras are thinking this morning.  For the superagent it is about money but for the player I think the ring means a lot to them.

I saw a poll of players on this a couple of years ago. In baseball, football and basketball big money won. Only hockey players chose winning a championship. I’m guessing if you poll only players in their thirties their perspective might change. 

We can second guess Hinch but in my opinion, it was just meant to be for the Nats. Harris has been lights out and most importantly, he executed the pitch that he wanted and Kendrick still hit it out. Plus, if Cole gives up that bomb, people would be asking why didn’t he go with Will Harris. Poor managers can never win unless they win. LoL 

I think I read that Kendrick has one hit all year in 27 at-bats against cutters in the general location. 1-27 but now he’s 2-28.  

If you’ve watch sports enough, you could see it coming. Springer smokes a ball that would have scored two runs but Soto makes the play. Altuve smokes a ball with two on but right at the CF. 

From all the late inning heroics to past the Dodgers and Astros to Scherzer getting to start game seven instead of possibly matching up against Cole in game 5. Don’t forget the very close pitch that was called a ball to Soto to set up the two run pump.  IMO, it was just the year of the Nats and there’s nothing that Houston could have done about it. 

P.S. When does a ball ever hit the bag at and not get away from the first baseman? 

RJM posted:

I'm wondering what Bryce Harper and Superagent Scott Boras are thinking this morning.  For the superagent it is about money but for the player I think the ring means a lot to them.

I saw a poll of players on this a couple of years ago. In baseball, football and basketball big money won. Only hockey players chose winning a championship. I’m guessing if you poll only players in their thirties their perspective might change. 

From the reports that I’ve read/heard, it’s not like the Phillies gave Harper a ridiculous amount more than what the Nats offered. I heard the deals were very similar financially so we’re talking apples to apples. If that’s true, then Harper left because he wanted to, not because of the money. 

hshuler posted:

RJM posted:

I'm wondering what Bryce Harper and Superagent Scott Boras are thinking this morning.  For the superagent it is about money but for the player I think the ring means a lot to them.

I saw a poll of players on this a couple of years ago. In baseball, football and basketball big money won. Only hockey players chose winning a championship. I’m guessing if you poll only players in their thirties their perspective might change. 

From the reports that I’ve read/heard, it’s not like the Phillies gave Harper a ridiculous amount more than what the Nats offered. I heard the deals were very similar financially so we’re talking apples to apples. If that’s true, then Harper left because he wanted to, not because of the money. 

Washington Post: "The Nationals offered Harper a 10-year, $300 million contract near the end of the 2018 season — a deal that, notably, would have given Harper a higher average annual value than the one he ultimately got from the Phillies. However, according to multiple people in the industry, the Nationals’ offer also contained deferrals of up to $100 million, to be paid out over decades — so much deferred money that Major League Baseball raised concerns. Such deferred payments would have significantly reduced its present-day value. Harper’s Phillies contract, by comparison, contains no deferrals."

https://www.washingtonpost.com...iladelphia-phillies/

MidAtlanticDad posted:

hshuler posted:

RJM posted:

I'm wondering what Bryce Harper and Superagent Scott Boras are thinking this morning.  For the superagent it is about money but for the player I think the ring means a lot to them.

I saw a poll of players on this a couple of years ago. In baseball, football and basketball big money won. Only hockey players chose winning a championship. I’m guessing if you poll only players in their thirties their perspective might change. 

From the reports that I’ve read/heard, it’s not like the Phillies gave Harper a ridiculous amount more than what the Nats offered. I heard the deals were very similar financially so we’re talking apples to apples. If that’s true, then Harper left because he wanted to, not because of the money. 

Washington Post: "The Nationals offered Harper a 10-year, $300 million contract near the end of the 2018 season — a deal that, notably, would have given Harper a higher average annual value than the one he ultimately got from the Phillies. However, according to multiple people in the industry, the Nationals’ offer also contained deferrals of up to $100 million, to be paid out over decades — so much deferred money that Major League Baseball raised concerns. Such deferred payments would have significantly reduced its present-day value. Harper’s Phillies contract, by comparison, contains no deferrals."

https://www.washingtonpost.com...iladelphia-phillies/

👍🏾

https://www.google.com/amp/s/a...ffer-45-million-year

hshuler posted:

👍🏾

https://www.google.com/amp/s/a...ffer-45-million-year

Definitely seem like long term security was his #1 priority. Maybe he and the Nats both needed a fresh start.

cabbagedad posted:

Wechson, I saw at least 8-10 very bad ball-strike calls last night that were confirmed bad not only by K-zone but by the straight down camera angle and the player reactions.  Son and I were discussing hitting before the game and he made the point how good most MLB players' eyes are for the zone - that when they react with any degree of animation, they are right nine times out of ten.

 

I can't vouch for his methods or accuracy but Umpire Auditor on Twitter had Jim Wolf with an 88.9% correct call rate in game 7, which is well below average.

https://twitter.com/UmpireAudi.../1189958290144280576

What I don't get in a series like this is you have a crew of 6. There has to be 2 guys who are recognizably best at working plate.  Use them there.  Leave the others in the field.  (Too much wear and tear for the one best guy to do all the games.)

I'm also wondering -- just because it's off-season now and there is time to wonder, what if, before we go all in on full umpire robot mode, it's done partially. Each team gets a small number of balls-and-strikes challenges, say 3 or 4 per game. For call to be overturned, is has to be egregiously bad, as for example most of those in the tweet above.  This would not have to add any time to the game.  An ump working remotely could watch every pitch live, flag the really bad calls, and send the rulings to a device carried by the plate ump.  Manager signals his challenge and plate ump checks the device for an instant ruling. 

At the same time, let's institute a clock on regular challenges.  Start the clock when the umps grab the headsets. If they can't get a ruling within 60 seconds,  the original call stands.

hshuler posted:

RJM posted:

I'm wondering what Bryce Harper and Superagent Scott Boras are thinking this morning.  For the superagent it is about money but for the player I think the ring means a lot to them.

I saw a poll of players on this a couple of years ago. In baseball, football and basketball big money won. Only hockey players chose winning a championship. I’m guessing if you poll only players in their thirties their perspective might change. 

From the reports that I’ve read/heard, it’s not like the Phillies gave Harper a ridiculous amount more than what the Nats offered. I heard the deals were very similar financially so we’re talking apples to apples. If that’s true, then Harper left because he wanted to, not because of the money. 

 The Nationals offer had money deferred over decades. In net present value the offers weren’t even close. 

JCG posted:

cabbagedad posted:

Wechson, I saw at least 8-10 very bad ball-strike calls last night that were confirmed bad not only by K-zone but by the straight down camera angle and the player reactions.  Son and I were discussing hitting before the game and he made the point how good most MLB players' eyes are for the zone - that when they react with any degree of animation, they are right nine times out of ten.

 

I can't vouch for his methods or accuracy but Umpire Auditor on Twitter had Jim Wolf with an 88.9% correct call rate in game 7, which is well below average.

https://twitter.com/UmpireAudi.../1189958290144280576

What I don't get in a series like this is you have a crew of 6. There has to be 2 guys who are recognizably best at working plate.  Use them there.  Leave the others in the field.  (Too much wear and tear for the one best guy to do all the games.)

I'm also wondering -- just because it's off-season now and there is time to wonder, what if, before we go all in on full umpire robot mode, it's done partially. Each team gets a small number of balls-and-strikes challenges, say 3 or 4 per game. For call to be overturned, is has to be egregiously bad, as for example most of those in the tweet above.  This would not have to add any time to the game.  An ump working remotely could watch every pitch live, flag the really bad calls, and send the rulings to a device carried by the plate ump.  Manager signals his challenge and plate ump checks the device for an instant ruling. 

At the same time, let's institute a clock on regular challenges.  Start the clock when the umps grab the headsets. If they can't get a ruling within 60 seconds,  the original call stands.

JCG, in the same conversation I mentioned above, son had a very similar idea to yours.  One concern, of course, is if that door is opened, will it just lead to robotic ump anyway, to which I have reservations.  I just can't understand how the best of the best at the highest level miss that much and, like you said, why they don't have the best of the crew working behind the dish in playoffs.  That's what I would like to see.

I thought I heard the announcers say last night that the plate umpire was the ump who had the best rating for balls and strikes all season, according to the way that they rate them, that's why he was specifically chosen to work the plate for game 7.

JCG posted:

cabbagedad posted:

Wechson, I saw at least 8-10 very bad ball-strike calls last night that were confirmed bad not only by K-zone but by the straight down camera angle and the player reactions.  Son and I were discussing hitting before the game and he made the point how good most MLB players' eyes are for the zone - that when they react with any degree of animation, they are right nine times out of ten.

 

I can't vouch for his methods or accuracy but Umpire Auditor on Twitter had Jim Wolf with an 88.9% correct call rate in game 7, which is well below average.

https://twitter.com/UmpireAudi.../1189958290144280576

What I don't get in a series like this is you have a crew of 6. There has to be 2 guys who are recognizably best at working plate.  Use them there.  Leave the others in the field.  (Too much wear and tear for the one best guy to do all the games.)

I'm also wondering -- just because it's off-season now and there is time to wonder, what if, before we go all in on full umpire robot mode, it's done partially. Each team gets a small number of balls-and-strikes challenges, say 3 or 4 per game. For call to be overturned, is has to be egregiously bad, as for example most of those in the tweet above.  This would not have to add any time to the game.  An ump working remotely could watch every pitch live, flag the really bad calls, and send the rulings to a device carried by the plate ump.  Manager signals his challenge and plate ump checks the device for an instant ruling. 

At the same time, let's institute a clock on regular challenges.  Start the clock when the umps grab the headsets. If they can't get a ruling within 60 seconds,  the original call stands.

I've argued for this, as tennis has actually done a really good job here.  If anything, the contested line call reveals are dramatic in-and-of themselves and additive to the game.  I wasn't really for the concept until this post season when the 3D graphics made it clear the technology had advanced enough that it would be significantly accurate.  This feels like a smart solve.  Keeps the human element, but tech is added in to enhance the accuracy and ultimately improve the product. 

anotherparent posted:

I thought I heard the announcers say last night that the plate umpire was the ump who had the best rating for balls and strikes all season, according to the way that they rate them, that's why he was specifically chosen to work the plate for game 7.

I thought he was pretty good. The Correa punch out was the only obvious miss that I remember. Every other close calls could have gone either way. 

anotherparent posted:

I thought I heard the announcers say last night that the plate umpire was the ump who had the best rating for balls and strikes all season, according to the way that they rate them, that's why he was specifically chosen to work the plate for game 7.

Agree with HShuler.  He was pretty good and definitely better than the other Homeplate umpires that came before him in the World Series.

One last question, is there anyone who would not take this pitch in this location, prior to knowing the results?

https://www.foxsports.com/mlb/video/1633563715822

When the balls and strikes are automated - will anyone miss the complaining about balls and strikes?  Not me.

Does anyone miss the 5 minute temper tantrums on bang/bang plays at first or close ones at the bases.  I find it perfectly fine that in roughly 45 seconds Don Denkinger could have been erased from the history books.

Gerrit cole apparently declined to be available for post game interviews with the notion he is no longer employed by the astros.

Dominik85 posted:

Gerrit cole apparently declined to be available for post game interviews with the notion he is no longer employed by the astros.

‘Asked by a team official to meet with reporters after their 6-2 loss to the Washington Nationals on Wednesday, Cole, who was wearing a Boras Corp. hat, said, "I'm not employed by the team."

However, after agreeing to interviews, he started out with, "I guess as a representative of myself ..."’

Everyone knows that he’s getting paid and he’s earned it but do you really want to come across as it’s about nothing but money?

He should get paid but why not wait with this talk a week, give the reporters some rehearsed answers and then start talking to teams on monday? 

Technically he is right but what does he gain by saying that?

A different perspective on the youthfulness of Soto, as part of an MLB article...

" Juan Soto danced in the middle of the visitors' clubhouse at Minute Maid Park. His teammates were pouring champagne and beer on his head, and for the first time in his career, Soto was able to celebrate with a beer in his hand, instead of the sparkling water he used during the first four celebrations.

“I’m thankful to be celebrating this with my first beer with these guys,” said Soto, who turned 21 last week. “This is incredible.”   "

Dominik85 posted:

He should get paid but why not wait with this talk a week, give the reporters some rehearsed answers and then start talking to teams on monday? 

Technically he is right but what does he gain by saying that?

Agree 100%. He may not be but that came across as very selfish. 

hshuler posted:

Dominik85 posted:

Gerrit cole apparently declined to be available for post game interviews with the notion he is no longer employed by the astros.

‘Asked by a team official to meet with reporters after their 6-2 loss to the Washington Nationals on Wednesday, Cole, who was wearing a Boras Corp. hat, said, "I'm not employed by the team."

However, after agreeing to interviews, he started out with, "I guess as a representative of myself ..."’

Everyone knows that he’s getting paid and he’s earned it but do you really want to come across as it’s about nothing but money?

Agree but from what I've read he was livid at not coming into the game. More frustration about the way they lost than a selfishness thing. Probably didn't realize how it reflects on him but thats how it is with athletes sometimes. 

Dominik85 posted:

Gerrit cole apparently declined to be available for post game interviews with the notion he is no longer employed by the astros.

Given his contract status would be the same if the Astros won, I wonder if he would have declined the interview under those circumstances.  Probably not.    He just had his cranky pants on!

PABaseball posted:

hshuler posted:

Dominik85 posted:

Gerrit cole apparently declined to be available for post game interviews with the notion he is no longer employed by the astros.

 

Agree but from what I've read he was livid at not coming into the game. More frustration about the way they lost than a selfishness thing. Probably didn't realize how it reflects on him but thats how it is with athletes sometimes. 

Being a gracious winner is (relatively) very easy.  Losing game 7 of the WS, then giving interviews to national media would be extremely hard--even harder if you were your team's best pitcher and the manager had chosen not to use you.  Talking with the media is part of the job description for a player like Cole, but I'm not sure how a person could ever really prepare for that situation.  I hope it was just a moment of frustration, rather than an indication of his character.  I admit my initial reaction was to judge him pretty harshly for this; but maybe he deserves the benefit of the doubt.  (Although I'm sure Verlander also was feeling mighty frustrated given his postseason record in 2019, and so far as I know he handled the media without incident.)   

Maybe deserves its own thread, but this article on ESPN.com is interesting re: why postseason games are so long:  

https://www.espn.com/mlb/story...ries-games-last-long

In particular, there is this:  "Postseason commercial breaks are longer than regular-season breaks, by about 50 seconds. There are 17 between-inning breaks (one after every half inning except the final one), plus pitching change breaks (which are also longer in the postseason), so that adds around 17 minutes. This is baked into every postseason game, so if you want to know what an average postseason game is, start at 3 hours, 20 minutes."

As a Nats fan, I have to say, their winning game 6 and then the whole thing got the ump off the hook for that interference call.

Generally, the umpiring in this WS was just awful, and in the HD era, it was sorely exposed.  Trea Turner in particular must've ticked someone off at some point, because he got rung at least 3 times on third strikes that weren't really that close.  Robot umps?  Sign me up.  And oh yeah, let's not forget that on the first play of game 6, Turner was called out at first on a play that had to be reviewed to get the call right.  But hey, the ump only missed it by like 5 feet's worth of throw.  Everyone saw it but him.

As for Cole, I was kind of surprised by the post-game discussion.  His facial expressions and body language while warming up the first time indicated he didn't feel he could do it.  He tried to loosen up later in the game, same thing, then didn't come in.  My impression was they would've used him and didn't only because he just hadn't recovered enough to go.  If that wasn't the case, why all the grimaces and warmups cut short?  In any event, those who have followed Cole know that his talent is his calling card but he's not what you would call a great teammate otherwise.  His comments after game 7 were not slips of the lip so much as catching the real GC with his guard down.  My guess is Boras got him on the phone and helped him to try to rehab his image the day after, so that it wouldn't become a negative in his forthcoming free agency.  In which he figures to nab $30 million plus per year for 7 years. 

As for the Nats, it's really good to see them get this, especially since it's the last hurrah for the group on the field.  Only 12 of the starters, key subs and pitchers used in the World Series are under contract for next year.  I don't see how the Nats can pay what they owe Scherzer and Corbin, then also pay $30m/year to Rendon and Strasburg, too.  They aren't going to pay Zimmerman per the $18m team option; expect the team to pay his buyout and then maybe try to sign him for a far lesser amount to be a part-time guy.  Turner, Soto and Robles return but guys like Eaton, Kendrick, Cabrera, Dozier and Hudson have to max their value now, as it could be the last time they get to in each of their careers.

And since they won, it won't be sour grapes for me to put in my 2 cents about the interference call and the rule generally, as an academic point.

Before we do anything else, does anyone disagree that the rule needs to be changed with respect to the penalty assessed?  Let's say you call Turner out.  Why does Yan Gomes have to return to first base?  OK, so he doesn't get to stay at third, but no one was making any play on him at 2nd.  Sans interference, he would've been at 2nd.  He should keep that.  The rule has always said that he has to be sent back, so the rule was properly applied, I know, but to paraphrase Mr. Macawber, the rule is a ass.  If nothing else, change this.

As to the application of the rule, I don't know how Davey Martinez lasted as long as he did before he totally lost it.  Just a horrible, horrible call.

Most such interference calls happen on bunts or dribblers that stay right around home plate.  Why?  Because that's when the runner gets into the throwing lane the fielder has to use.  In this case, the ball Turner hit bounced about 45 feet up the third base line.  Peacock had a clear throwing lane to the base.  He threw into the runner, and in fact threw a tailing sinker to boot.  Heck, I think Turner had the play beat, and the most he got out of his contact with Gurriel was the extra base when the ball got away.  But saving Peacock from his own horrible throw is not what the rule is for, so applying it to this play was just wrong, wrong, wrong.

The rule requires that Turner BOTH (a) interfere and (b) be outside the runner's lane.  The runner's lane is like the batter's box, in the sense that it's a safe harbor space.  If a batter is hit by a batted ball that's in fair territory, he's out -- unless he's still in the batter's box.  Part of the batter's box is in fair territory, mind you.  But if he's in the batter's box, he's not out.  The rule says that even a ball in fair territory is a dead ball and treated as if it were foul.

Similarly, if the runner is in the runner's lane, he cannot be deemed guilty of interference even if the ball hits him.  (Unless he pulls an A-Rod and swats at it or some such.)  The runner's lane is privileged space.

But a runner not in the lane is not out just because a ball hits him.  He still has to be deemed to have interfered.  This is where the umpires screwed up.  Turner was not in the runner's lane, so he's not in the safe space.  But he also didn't interfere.  The mere act of running slightly outside the lane is not interference.  Peacock had a clean throwing lane and Peacock threw wildly.  That wasn't because of anything Turner did.  Turner didn't alter his path, he didn't raise his arms, nothing.  He just ran to the base.  I saw no act of interference.

Think of the very common play where the SS has his throw sail and the 1B comes off the bag for the grab-and-swipe tag attempt.  On most of those plays the batter-runner is outside the runner's lane, in fair territory.  But if the 1B has the ball come out of his glove, is the batter-runner called out?  NEVER.  Well, the Peacock-Turner play is just like that play.

Maybe the rule could be revised to make this, the standard understanding and application, more clear.  But to my mind, the problem is not the rule language. 

The problem is, we had a World Series that's supposed to have the best of the best on the field, and MLB put umpires out there who embarrassed themselves all 7 games.  The only saving grace is that, as best I could tell, it didn't decide any one game, nor the outcome of the Series.

Well said, Midlo.   Well said.