448 replies to this topic

[BSLZackKiesel]

Good to have baseball back. Can't wait to tune in again tomorrow night and see if they can grab the series win.

 

Hadn't watched much Spring Training ball and hadn't really followed the new guys closely, but liked what I saw from Snider. Seems like a really solid all-around player. Loved those two long at-bats by DeAza, he looks like a winner for the lead-off spot. And while Tillman didn't have his best outing, he was still able to make it into the 7th inning. Hoping for more good things in the next few days!

[Mackus]

It's just one game, so whatever but I do feel a good start to this season is big for this team given the early injury situation and just unclear roster situation that they have in certain areas.

 

Also because of the AL East dominated schedule (29 first 34 games).

[SportsGuy]

Also because of the AL East dominated schedule (29 first 34 games).

Good point. Hadn't even looked at the schedule thst closely.

Get through April 500 or better and you have to feel pretty good about the long term.

[RShack]

Looking at that play at the plate which was challenged (re: Caleb blocking the plate)... while the correct call was made, what's crazy is to have a rule that makes that an iffy question.  Rather than just upholding that call, they should use a clip of that play as an example of exactly how close plays at the plate are *supposed* to be.  Both runner and catcher did exactly the right things.  It was done right, plus it was pretty.  That shouldn't be an example of a reviewable play, it should be a teaching example of both players doing it the right way.

[bnickle]

Cant the catcher block off the plate if he receives the ball well before the player gets there. I dont think you have to give the runner any chance to get the plate if its not going to be a close play. Catcher should have been down and sealing the plate off. If Pearce makes any contact at all he should be out. If you're gonna make it so that the catcher has to give the runner the plate on a bang bang play then you have to  give the defense the out when the catcher is there with the ball waiting for the runner to arrive. 

[McNulty]

Cant the catcher block off the plate if he receives the ball well before the player gets there. I dont think you have to give the runner any chance to get the plate if its not going to be a close play. Catcher should have been down and sealing the plate off. If Pearce makes any contact at all he should be out. If you're gonna make it so that the catcher has to give the runner the plate on a bang bang play then you have to  give the defense the out when the catcher is there with the ball waiting for the runner to arrive. 

 

Catcher should've ran up the line a little to tag him out.

[RShack]

Cant the catcher block off the plate if he receives the ball well before the player gets there. I dont think you have to give the runner any chance to get the plate if its not going to be a close play. Catcher should have been down and sealing the plate off. If Pearce makes any contact at all he should be out. If you're gonna make it so that the catcher has to give the runner the plate on a bang bang play then you have to  give the defense the out when the catcher is there with the ball waiting for the runner to arrive. 

 

I was talking about failed challenge re: Caleb, not the successful challenge re: Pearce... but, yeah, you're right.  The C on the Pearce play screwed up by not doing what you said... but I think that's mainly because the new rule has half of everybody confused...

 

The rule started out simple and easy to understand, but they screwed it up.  The idea was to quit making plays at the plate different from from plays elsewhere... but they did a crappy job of explaining the rule and then calling it correctly.  What they should have done is tell everybody (including the umps) that the only thing the rule means is that plays at the plate are just like plays at 2B.  That's it, that's all there is to it.   But they didn't do that.  Instead, they told the umps God-knows-what, and the umps starting calling screwy things.  

 

My favorite was when they called blocking on a C who was standing right on the 3B line waiting for a throw while the runner was still closer to 3B than he was to the plate.  If the C had just stood elsewhere, then stepped over when the ball got there, it would have been fine.  Either way, the runner was properly dead... but because the C stood in the right place too soon, the runner got called safe and the run scored... which was nuts.

 

The way Buck and John Russell decided to handle it last year was right:  stand behind the plate or straddle the 3B line, but keep the play in front of you and make the runner slide between your legs... but I think one of MLB's stupid rule "clarifications" banned that... I think the C is now supposed to start out in front the plate, which is the wrong place, and do so for no good reason... I hope I'm wrong about that...

[DJ MC]

I still think the best thing to tell catchers, even if it's "unofficial", is to simply stand on the mound-side of the third-base line until you have the ball. That way there is always a path open to the plate.

[RShack]

I still think the best thing to tell catchers, even if it's "unofficial", is to simply stand on the mound-side of the third-base line until you have the ball. That way there is always a path open to the plate.

 

On a close play, that means the C likely is catching the ball in front of the plate then moving it back to the runner... which is slow... you don't wanna do that on an attempted steal of 2B, just like you don't wanna do that at the plate...  Buck and Russell had it exactly right before the "clarifications" started screwing with them... no good reason (except the goof-ified rule) to start out in front of the plate...once we got rid of Ramon I thought I wouldn't have to watch that anymore, but now it seems they've made it a dang rule...