World Series 2018--Red Sox vs. Dodgers

Rough Carrigan

reasons within Reason
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
He'd just given up a double to Benintendi (the lefty he was kept in to face) and was looking at Pearce, Martinez, Bogaerts. Bringing in Baez there makes all the sense in the world.

Unless you're confusing Urias with Baez and don't think the Dodgers should have brought in Wood in that spot.
I agree. The thing with the whole matchup game of getting this guy to face that guy because it give us some certain expected edge is that it assumes a base condition. It assumes that you should use pitcher B because in most situations against some certain batter he's better than pitcher A. Well, what if it's a really small difference and pitcher A looks fantastic, at the very top of his game?

Every time you change pitchers you run the risk that the guy you're bringing in just doesn't have it that day or will take some time to get adjusted to this mound or to the pressure of the situation etc. The guy already in there and throwing great doesn't have that risk.
 

MakeMineMoxie

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
722
The floor of Punter's Pub
MLB can make all the rules they want to, but if they can't force the umpires to enforce them what's the use. It is unbelievable that MLB lets their officials decide what rules they will enforce.

I don't mind the umps having a union, like the players, they got shat on for a long time but MLB simply has to regain control of their work on the field.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,917
AZ
There is no reason for the umps to go on the headset for most replays. Safe/out at first could be handled in 10 seconds. How many times are there multiple "safe" or "out" posts in gamethreads because the replay is obvious tennis does this instantaneously. I see cricket on TV where the replay decision is flashed on the scoreboard, after a few seconds.

Also this change will get closer to robot strike zone.
I've always been kind of curious whether there is any two way conversation that goes on. I think when there's a reply the headsets go to the crew chief and the guy who made the call. It seems to me that in an ideal world there should be a two-way conversation happening on these reviews. If I'm the replay office I want to know not only what the call was but why the guy called it and what he thought he saw. I mean if the guy were to say "I was blocked by the catcher on the play" I would treat that completely different from "I clearly saw space between the first baseman's foot and the base."

I don't know if this happens. But I can see the basis for wanting to have headsets.

More generally, though, put me in the camp that does not give a shit about the pace of play or the length of games. The only sense in which I care about it is that if it's true that some people are turning away from the game because of it then I'm ok with taking measures to try to preserve a game I love. But personally I don't care.
 

DeJesus Built My Hotrod

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 24, 2002
48,648
You guys really find the slow pace of play in the postseason to be an issue? I find it adds to the drama/anticipation, even when it isn't the Red Sox playing. In the regular season I get the complaint more, but then again I don't find a random November Rockets-Suns game or whatever particularly compelling either.

The real issue is start times - if the Super Bowl can start at 6 pm Eastern time, World Series games sure as heck can too (I would even take 7, otherwise known as a normal baseball night-game start time).
Many of us here are fine to ok with the pace of the games but this board's view on this topic suffers from self-selection bias. The rubber meets the road in the declining viewership data. There are plenty of factors driving this but all the issues mentioned including pace of play and length of games are huge factors.
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,801
Many of us here are fine to ok with the pace of the games but this board's view on this topic suffers from self-selection bias. The rubber meets the road in the declining viewership data. There are plenty of factors driving this but all the issues mentioned including pace of play and length of games are huge factors.
To your point, an article I found amusing describes Game 1 as seen by children who have a 9:00 pm bedtime across the various US time zones: http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25066515/bed-world-series-game-1-looked-kids-four-zones
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
Many of us here are fine to ok with the pace of the games but this board's view on this topic suffers from self-selection bias. The rubber meets the road in the declining viewership data. There are plenty of factors driving this but all the issues mentioned including pace of play and length of games are huge factors.
That's fair. But on the other hand, for a baseball fan, does it really matter whether viewership is declining? It's not like baseball is going to go anywhere anytime soon, and if it becomes more of a niche sport like hockey or NASCAR, is that really the end of the world? I guess over a long period of time declining viewership could lead to less revenue, which could lead to smaller salaries and thus less talent in the game overall, but it seems like we are a long, long ways off from that.

Edit: Obviously the above is irrelevant to people who are fans AND don't like how slow games are, so I'm not suggesting it may not be wise to look into ways to shorten times. But I don't necessarily think that marginal/casual fans being somewhat less likely to watch is a particularly compelling reason to do so.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,917
AZ
So, sorry to break up the pace of play discussion, but I was ruminating about what an amazing event the world series is and what a crazy game baseball is. To watch Eduardo Nunez is so frustrating for 162 games. He swings out of the zone and helps pitchers out and refuses to take walks even where one is huge. You sort of wonder how he has forged a big league career. I mean intellectually you know why. He has unbelievable plate coverage and he can put the ball in play on pitches that most batters would look foolish on. And you intellectually know that this can be important. But you don't feel it. Or rarely. I mean, he gets a hit and you don't go back and see that it was a very touch pitch and the pitcher is shaking his head, because in a 7-2 game in August what's the big deal, it's just a single in a game in August.

You could probably look at some random sample of 20 at bats and not really see anything that makes you anything other than annoyed. You'd see some strike outs on balls out of the zone or weak contact or 7-pitch at bats where he gets out even though he was thrown 6 balls. And he could easily have 20 at bats like that in the postseason and who would ever really be surprised. And you'd just wonder, what the fuck is this guy about? Or he could see two pitches and in four seconds everything that is Eduardo Nunez would be perfectly encapsulated in one swing.

It's just such an amazing game. It can totally work out the other way too. You know, you watch a guy like Barnes all year and you're constantly on edge about whether his control problems will be a thing in a tight spot, but you put up with it because some times he's sublime. Maybe there will be a moment in this series where the opposite of the Nunez thing happens and the Red Sox and Barnes give up a big walk and you think "well that's Matt Barnes perfectly encapsulated." But, man, when it works out for you, it's so fun.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,921
Unreal America
I'm hesitant to spend much time commenting on pace-of-play issues in the middle of a Sox World Series. However, as someone who both loves baseball and finds the pace-of-play excruciatingly slow at times I'm all for findings ways to increase ball-in-play action and lop many minutes off game duration.

Never was this more clear to me than last Sunday when I was flipping between Pats-Chiefs and Sox-Astros. The NFL has its own set of issues re: pace-of-play, but man oh man, it sure *felt* like that game had a quick flow to it, while the baseball game was it's interminable self.
 

Return of the Dewey

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 17, 2001
3,130
Pants Party
So, sorry to break up the pace of play discussion, but I was ruminating about what an amazing event the world series is and what a crazy game baseball is.....
It's just such an amazing game.
Not to mention the fact that a couple batters before that, JDM swung out on 3 consecutive pitches...who would've thought? That's why I keep watching, regardless of length/pace.
 

mwonow

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2005
7,137
Am I imagining this, or did the Sox fans used to serenade Dave Stewart with "Lucille!" over and over when he was warming up, after which he would come on to the field and kill the Sox yet again?

Being able to talk to (or 'at,' more accurately) makes Fenway a great venue, relative to (for example) Toronto's Rogers Centre.

Also, over the years, having fans able to be heard in the bullpen has definitely been a double-edged sword for the Sox...
 

HangingW/ScottCooper

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2006
2,504
Scituate, MA
I agree as well. The on-field product has gotten extremely tedious and there is no way I'd watch these games if the Red Sox weren't playing. I don't know what can be done about it outside of a pitch clock but something has to give because baseball will continue to die if the pace of play doesn't improve. I'm not saying every pitcher has to be Mark Buehrle but there has to be some happy medium. I was timing Price in Game 5 and it was like 25 seconds between pitches. That's just unacceptable. Couple that with the high number of pitches thrown per game as Passan points out and the games move at a glacial, uninteresting pace.
I think two big things that need to happen are an enforced pitch clock with balls called when no one is on base. The other thing that needs to happen is some sort of wireless transmitter between the players on the field. The primary use would be pitcher/catcher for pitch calling, but a significant amount of the in game delays are based on non-verbal signals.

If those two things don't happen I fear baseball would have to take a more drastic approach like dropping a game from 9 innings to 8 or 7. The overall length of game needs to be shorter and if they're not willing to adjust the pace of the game then they're going to have to draw a line elsewhere.

Beyond that, these games need to start at 7 or 7:30 and otherwise be more accessible to younger fans. The playoffs were on FS1 and TBS instead of a major network that everyone gets with basic cable. Streaming options were poor last year but improved this year. Baseball fans are getting older and the problems are quite obvious.

While baseball has had some interesting story lines over the last 15-20 years with long suffering franchises getting over the hump, it's lacked a dynamic superstar to act as the face of the game. The Ken Griffey, Jr. ad is a great start, but that needs to be combined with making the game more accessible. Look at the NBA, while people still support their local team, it's become a sport where fans are more apt to support their favorite players than their favorite teams at times.
 

Tyrone Biggums

nfl meets tri-annually at a secret country mansion
SoSH Member
Aug 15, 2006
6,424
Am I imagining this, or did the Sox fans used to serenade Dave Stewart with "Lucille!" over and over when he was warming up, after which he would come on to the field and kill the Sox yet again?

Being able to talk to (or 'at,' more accurately) makes Fenway a great venue, relative to (for example) Toronto's Rogers Centre.

Also, over the years, having fans able to be heard in the bullpen has definitely been a double-edged sword for the Sox...
I was at the game last night behind the bullpen. Security was up everyone’s ass about getting on Puig and to a lesser extent Kershaw. I remember way back when David Justice was playing for Cleveland and they came into town for the playoffs and 35,000 were chanting Hallie Berry.
 

Hagios

New Member
Dec 15, 2007
672
I don't think there is much baseball can do to promote superstars, even if Mike Trout did home run dances. MLB teams play six days out of seven so there isn't much pent-up demand for baseball that the home team can't satisfy. At least in the NBA your team plays maybe three games a week, so more often than not, if you want to watch basketball you have to look for a good national game. That creates superstars and promotes the whole "league is stronger than the sum of individual teams" effect.
 

reggiecleveland

sublime
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
28,004
Saskatoon Canada
I've always been kind of curious whether there is any two way conversation that goes on. I think when there's a reply the headsets go to the crew chief and the guy who made the call. It seems to me that in an ideal world there should be a two-way conversation happening on these reviews. If I'm the replay office I want to know not only what the call was but why the guy called it and what he thought he saw. I mean if the guy were to say "I was blocked by the catcher on the play" I would treat that completely different from "I clearly saw space between the first baseman's foot and the base."

I don't know if this happens. But I can see the basis for wanting to have headsets.

More generally, though, put me in the camp that does not give a shit about the pace of play or the length of games. The only sense in which I care about it is that if it's true that some people are turning away from the game because of it then I'm ok with taking measures to try to preserve a game I love. But personally I don't care.
A lot of it saving face. I imagine a fair bit of what they say is, "Yeah Angel fucked up again, he's safe. Anyway Joe that barbecue place in Chicago, what the hell was the name of it, Bernice and I are going there next month. Okay yeah, on Lake street right? Anyway fucking Angel, well gives me something I do I guess. Okay nod stoically. See ya."
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
59,305
San Andreas Fault
All this talk about how the game has slowed ignores how much that improves the game. Go watch the video of WS game 7 from 1952 that someone posted recently. The pace is lightning quick but there is very little of the drama I love about postseason baseball. I vastly prefer what we have now.
How about something in between, like the length of an NFL game (3 hours +/- a few minutes). I have no idea how people on the east coast handle these games. But, I will not whine because we freaking won.
 

EdRalphRomero

wooderson
SoSH Member
Oct 3, 2007
4,481
deep in the hole
Question about rules enforcement -- did anyone else think the Dodgers middle infielders were impeding the basepath on plays at second? I noticed it right away on Mookie's steal where it seemed he was forced 2 feet into right to get access to the bag. Maybe even more pronounced when 10d took second on the Puig throw in the first. There Machado put his entire left leg down the length of the bag. Was it out of the ordinary blocking? Or was I just hyped up?
 

ookami7m

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
5,680
Mobile, AL
To your point, an article I found amusing describes Game 1 as seen by children who have a 9:00 pm bedtime across the various US time zones: http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25066515/bed-world-series-game-1-looked-kids-four-zones
That's a fun read. I've let my oldest (11 y/o) stay up about an hour later than usual to watch as much of the games as she can. 10pm last night hit right before the top of the 7th at our house so that's as far as she got. The pace of play stuff is more pronounced when it's the playoffs and the games are on a bigger stage, but until the rules on stepping out of the box etc are enforced they won't get any faster. With the game already being a game of inches, every small percentage of benefit is huge and you can't ask the managers not to play for those percentage points.
 

JimD

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 29, 2001
8,694
MLB got what should be a dream World Series matchup - LA vs. Boston, with both the Dodgers and Sox being legitimate contenders. If ratings continue to fall because every game is pushing four hours, maybe that will finally wake them up.
 

JohntheBaptist

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 13, 2005
11,410
Yoknapatawpha County
I do genuinely worry about baseball staying viable as a popular sport long-term. I do think finding some common sense way to shave 15-20 mins off a game would be nice, sure.

I do not have a problem with the pace of play such that I think about it even once while watching. There is also nothing I hate more than trying to fix baseball with more rules. The pitch clock is a good idea but should be seen as a culture change and less a balm for current playoff games--changing the way pitchers approach the game where slow, slower, slowest isn't part of how they learn to work. Rushing pitchers that have been allowed to grow into players with the luxury of a slower speed doesn't seem like a great idea or great product. I also thought Sale and Kershaw were a dream to watch--both work quick and steady.

I would definitely consider letting the pitcher wear an earpiece or something for communication with the catcher or bench. Getting signs straight and obsessing over their theft is not fun.

But yeah to my eyes that was a fantastic game that moved at the pace it was supposed to.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,921
Unreal America
I don't think there is much baseball can do to promote superstars, even if Mike Trout did home run dances. MLB teams play six days out of seven so there isn't much pent-up demand for baseball that the home team can't satisfy. At least in the NBA your team plays maybe three games a week, so more often than not, if you want to watch basketball you have to look for a good national game. That creates superstars and promotes the whole "league is stronger than the sum of individual teams" effect.
I've long felt that a huge part of the problem MLB has in promoting it's stars is that those stars aren't actually involved in game action all that much, relatively speaking.

Mookie is everything MLB could want: an amazing talent with a fun loving personality, playing on a winning team in a major market. Mookie gets 4 or 5 plate appearances a game. Maybe he fields a handful of fly balls. He may be in action for 10-12 minutes, tops, out of a 210 minute game.

Meanwhile Jason Tatum and Kyrie Irving play ~75% of minutes for the Cs... Tom Brady has the ball in his hands for every Pats offensive play, which is half the game on average, and throws it a good two-thirds of the time.... even Patrice Bergeron is on the ice for at least one-third a Bs game.

It's just tough for baseball to promote stars when someone who tunes in to a game can go long stretches of time without seeing them do anything.
 

Bosoxen

Bounced back
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 29, 2005
10,186
Well, the issue is that people on the West Coast, in a few pretty important markets for the league, are still at work. The Super Bowl is on the weekend.
If that were a consideration, Sunday's Game 5 would not be the latest start time of the whole series (yes, I realize people work on Sunday but 8-5 people generally do not). It's got nothing to do with people's work schedules and everything to do with maximizing ad revenue. It's really that simple.
 
Question about rules enforcement -- did anyone else think the Dodgers middle infielders were impeding the basepath on plays at second? I noticed it right away on Mookie's steal where it seemed he was forced 2 feet into right to get access to the bag. Maybe even more pronounced when 10d took second on the Puig throw in the first. There Machado put his entire left leg down the length of the bag. Was it out of the ordinary blocking? Or was I just hyped up?
On Mookie's steal, it looked as though Machado slid directly and deliberately into the baseline, knees first, to receive the throw. I don't think I've ever seen a 2B or SS handling an attempted steal do that before. If Mookie had continued on the same path, he would have smashed his head into Machado's knees. Maybe I'm imagining this, but it seemed to me that Mookie looked pissed as he completed the steal. If that play had happened later on, rather than one batter into Game 1, maybe he would have made an issue out of it.

In isolation, Machado's blocking Benintendi off 2B maybe isn't a cause for complaint. It didn't happen in isolation, though; it happened in the context of all of the other shit Machado tries to get away with.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
24,526
Miami (oh, Miami!)
If that were a consideration, Sunday's Game 5 would not be the latest start time of the whole series (yes, I realize people work on Sunday but 8-5 people generally do not). It's got nothing to do with people's work schedules and everything to do with maximizing ad revenue. It's really that simple.
At some point that becomes a self defeating strategy - meaning if fewer people watch the game, the ad revenue at some point will start to decrease.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
I've long felt that a huge part of the problem MLB has in promoting it's stars is that those stars aren't actually involved in game action all that much, relatively speaking.

Mookie is everything MLB could want: an amazing talent with a fun loving personality, playing on a winning team in a major market. Mookie gets 4 or 5 plate appearances a game. Maybe he fields a handful of fly balls. He may be in action for 10-12 minutes, tops, out of a 210 minute game.

Meanwhile Jason Tatum and Kyrie Irving play ~75% of minutes for the Cs... Tom Brady has the ball in his hands for every Pats offensive play, which is half the game on average, and throws it a good two-thirds of the time.... even Patrice Bergeron is on the ice for at least one-third a Bs game.

It's just tough for baseball to promote stars when someone who tunes in to a game can go long stretches of time without seeing them do anything.
To further your point even more, baseball is the only sport where a star might not do ANYTHING of note in a game. There is never, or almost never, going to be a game where [star basketball player X] or [star QB Y] doesn't have at least one nice play, pass, clutch opportunity, etc. But it's entirely possible Mike Trout will go 0-4 in a game and maybe never even make a catch in the outfield. (I guess the same could be said for WRs in football, but that kind of supports the point since there aren't that many star wide receivers in football.)
 

GRPhilipp

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 30, 2007
87
Having won game 1, the Sox have a 62% chance to win the Series, according to Dan Szymborski’s ZiPS projection system.

https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/zips-updated-playoff-probabilities-2018-world-series/

Interesting to note that, based on the probable starting pitchers as he sees them, the Sox’s chances in any particular game are not much better than a coin flip (max is 50.9%), and in game 4, if Porcello faces Hill, the good guys are essentially 60-40 underdogs.
 

Kevin Youkulele

wishes Claude Makelele was a Red Sox
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 12, 2006
8,935
San Diego
On Mookie's steal, it looked as though Machado slid directly and deliberately into the baseline, knees first, to receive the throw. I don't think I've ever seen a 2B or SS handling an attempted steal do that before. If Mookie had continued on the same path, he would have smashed his head into Machado's knees. Maybe I'm imagining this, but it seemed to me that Mookie looked pissed as he completed the steal. If that play had happened later on, rather than one batter into Game 1, maybe he would have made an issue out of it.

In isolation, Machado's blocking Benintendi off 2B maybe isn't a cause for complaint. It didn't happen in isolation, though; it happened in the context of all of the other shit Machado tries to get away with.
I was more bothered by Machado trying to block Benintendi than coming off the bag to try to catch an errant throw on the Mookie steal. Nonetheless, he certainly is putting himself in the way.

A feet first slide into second would give Machado something to think about. Then he'd be putting himself in harm's way.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,770
Michigan
All this talk about how the game has slowed ignores how much that improves the game. Go watch the video of WS game 7 from 1952 that someone posted recently. The pace is lightning quick but there is very little of the drama I love about postseason baseball. I vastly prefer what we have now.
It has been said before, but cannot be repeated enough: the main thing slowing down the game is TV. Next time your at a regular season game, look for the TV producer who signals the umpire when it’s okay to start playing again. Most of the time the players have been ready to got for at least a minute. If the MLB wants to speed up pace of play, the first thing it should do is stop letting the tail wag the dog.
 

dhappy42

Straw Man
Oct 27, 2013
15,770
Michigan
No, it was Machado:


On second viewing, Machado's maneuver looks even more problematic.
Yes. Both times he was blocking the base. The Mookie steal was more egregious than blocking Benny. If the Sox get a big lead they should steal and slide feet first. Not spikes up. Just feet first.

What’s the penalty for fielder interference or obstruction or whatever? It should be an additional base. On the review of the Benny slide to determine whether his hand came off, it was clear that Machado obstructed the baserunner without the ball. Benny should have been awarded third. I suppose Cora would have asked for a review too for that to be a possibility.
 

brandonchristensen

Loves Aaron Judge
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2012
38,563
It has been said before, but cannot be repeated enough: the main thing slowing down the game is TV. Next time your at a regular season game, look for the TV producer who signals the umpire when it’s okay to start playing again. Most of the time the players have been ready to got for at least a minute. If the MLB wants to speed up pace of play, the first thing it should do is stop letting the tail wag the dog.
The gaps between innings I'm less concerned with than the speed of play from a pitch to pitch perspective.
 

singaporesoxfan

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 21, 2004
11,882
Washington, DC
This is more for trivia purposes, but the Dodgers in this playoffs have played Atlanta, Milwaukee, and Boston, which are the three cities that have hosted the Braves franchise. Has any other World Series team done this? (I suppose it could be an AL team against the three As franchise locations in KC, Oakland, and Philly)
 

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
Justia Omnibus
Yes. Both times he was blocking the base. The Mookie steal was more egregious than blocking Benny. If the Sox get a big lead they should steal and slide feet first. Not spikes up. Just feet first.

What’s the penalty for fielder interference or obstruction or whatever? It should be an additional base. On the review of the Benny slide to determine whether his hand came off, it was clear that Machado obstructed the baserunner without the ball. Benny should have been awarded third. I suppose Cora would have asked for a review too for that to be a possibility.
Correct - if a play is being made on the obstructed runner, they get either the base the would have reached absent obstruction (in the umpire's judgement) or if that does not apply (such as this case), the ball is dead and runner(s) advance one base....
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
My understanding is you are allowed to block a base so long as you are doing so in the act of positioning yourself to receive a throw. Where that line is drawn seems up to the individual umpire. I found this video from I think 2017 at this link instructive.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,093
Yes. Both times he was blocking the base. The Mookie steal was more egregious than blocking Benny. If the Sox get a big lead they should steal and slide feet first. Not spikes up. Just feet first.

What’s the penalty for fielder interference or obstruction or whatever? It should be an additional base. On the review of the Benny slide to determine whether his hand came off, it was clear that Machado obstructed the baserunner without the ball. Benny should have been awarded third. I suppose Cora would have asked for a review too for that to be a possibility.
If it's not the catcher and home plate, fielders with the ball or receiving the ball, can block the base.

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.

Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball.
 

TheYaz67

Member
SoSH Member
May 21, 2004
4,712
Justia Omnibus
Being an umpire (albeit of the amateur variety), I was taught that the judgement part of that rule is indeed if the throw "pulls the fielder into the path of the runner", but he hasn't yet actually caught the ball, you can rule he was "in the act of fielding/receiving" and not rule obstruction - that is the one "loophole" in the "you can't block the base without the ball" part of the rule. You cannot however use that same defense if you "camp out" in a position that entirely obstructs a base and you are without the ball, prior to the ball/runner arriving. Machado's actions at second base seem like they are more the later than the former, so in my judgement the obstruction rule would apply....
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
54,093
Sure, there's definitely a judgment part of it. I just wanted to make sure people knew that it's not like homeplate.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,910
Maine
Would that be a reviewable call? In other words might the Sox keep that in their pocket until an overturnable call?
Is the blocking reviewable? I would think so. But the play in which Machado dropped a knee to block Benintendi did get challenged by the Dodgers. I would think that if Machado was successful in preventing Benintendi from touching the bag before he was tagged, they could have still ruled him safe based on the way Machado had the bag blocked before he received the ball.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
59,305
San Andreas Fault
Is the blocking reviewable? I would think so. But the play in which Machado dropped a knee to block Benintendi did get challenged by the Dodgers. I would think that if Machado was successful in preventing Benintendi from touching the bag before he was tagged, they could have still ruled him safe based on the way Machado had the bag blocked before he received the ball.
He blocked the bag on Mookie’s steal too. Amazing how the guy manages to find a dirty way of handling so many plays.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,602
can we talk about Puig playing 5 feet in front of Fenway's warning track?

absolutely stupid positioning. JD's bloop was catchable by a good fielder.
 

Lowrielicious

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 19, 2011
4,328
Yes. Both times he was blocking the base. The Mookie steal was more egregious than blocking Benny. If the Sox get a big lead they should steal and slide feet first. Not spikes up. Just feet first.
I would prefer they didn’t.
15 years ago I stole second and as I slid feet first (technically foot first, pop up slide) into 2 , the guy playing SS usually played catcher, but he had a good bat and their second catcher also a good player.
Throw comes in short hopping the base, and instead of trying to pick it he drops to his knees in a typical catcher blocking move, right in between me and the base. Slid right into his block and broke my talus bone (ankle). Needed surgery and pins. 4 months on crutches. 10 months to get back on the field. Lost a fair bit of flexibility in my ankle and hurts whenever it’s cold or if I sit cross legged or anything for any period of time.
Sucks.
 

gedman211

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2016
2,844
can we talk about Puig playing 5 feet in front of Fenway's warning track?

absolutely stupid positioning. JD's bloop was catchable by a good fielder.
Olney said he was 20 feet beyond the average RF position vs JD. Roberts is getting his ass handed to him. More egregious though, is not pitching Baez in that spot. Especially with how wild Madsen was in game 1.
 

lapa

New Member
Apr 20, 2018
544
Nothing would help the viewing experience more than a pitch clock. It's insane MLB hasn't actually instituted this yet.
A pitch clock AND an end to batter timeouts and stepping out of box
Pitch clock starts and it’s on you, get your ass in box and wait. If you step out it’s an automatic strike if the pitch clock buzzes it’s an automatic ball

Having said that I’d probably be more in favor of streamlining the rules for pitching changes like having to change only on start of inning unless pitcher is injured and goes to DL. But I like the game as it is so like someone else said if it becomes a less popular niche sport it’s not so bad ( one might argue less money and therefore lesser pool of players less quality product ) I’ll still be watching
 

gedman211

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2016
2,844
Unless I'm mistaken, the Sox lost 4 out of 5 exactly once all season. June 15-20 at SEA and at MIN. 538.com has us at 86% to win it all. Roughly the same odds as the Dems to take the house.
 

OCD SS

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Pete Abraham‏Verified account @PeteAbe 4m4 minutes ago
Cora confirms Porcello starts Game 3 and “maybe” Eovaldi in Game 4. But said he would use Eovaldi in Game 3 in relief if the game is there to win in the 8th inning.
When Eveoldi came in my first thought was that Rodriguez would likely start game 4. If the Dodgers have that much of a platoon split, there’s no reason not to take advantage of the Sox rotation’s number if LHP.
 
Last edited: