2011 MLB Season Thread

[FiddySicks]

Brandon Crawford just hit his first career home run, a grand slam, to give the Giants a 5-3 lead vs the Brewers. All of Santa Clara must be rockin right about now.

[DEAD!]

Brandon Crawford just hit his first career home run, a grand slam, to give the Giants a 5-3 lead vs the Brewers. All of Santa Clara must be rockin right about now.

Isn't that the norm?

[crashcarson15]

I've never understood why runners are allowed to steamroll the catcher when trying to score, but can't (or just choose not to) run over the 2nd or 3rd baseman when trying to avoid being tagged out. Same thing, right?

Isn't that EXACTLY what breaking up a double play is?

No. The two are completely different.

Right. Mainly because in a home plate collision, there may not even be an attempt to slide; the runner just barrels into the catcher.

The rule should be stated "slide feet first". If you collide sliding properly, no big deal. Anything else and you get fined/suspended.

Or even diving head first. But really, as a sport, there are a lot of dumb rules in baseball, and plowing the catcher (but not the other basemen) is one of those.

[Billy B]

I've never understood why runners are allowed to steamroll the catcher when trying to score, but can't (or just choose not to) run over the 2nd or 3rd baseman when trying to avoid being tagged out. Same thing, right?

Isn't that EXACTLY what breaking up a double play is?

No. The two are completely different.

Right. Mainly because in a home plate collision, there may not even be an attempt to slide; the runner just barrels into the catcher.

The rule should be stated "slide feet first". If you collide sliding properly, no big deal. Anything else and you get fined/suspended.

If there's a sliding feet first only rule, then they have to stop allowing the catcher to block the plate. Not only can you get hurt being the runner, but it doesn't make much sense that it's obstruction if you block any other plate it's obstruction.

[mania]

Hall of Famer Carter's tumor likely malignant

[Dexter Morgan]

Einhorn has agreed in principal to purchase roughly 33 percent of the team for $200 million, which will infuse cash and keep the organization solvent in the immediate future. In three years, according to the source, Einhorn has an option to up his stake to 60 percent, although principal owner Fred Wilpon and his family have an opportunity to block Einhorn from gaining that majority stake.

The source said the Wilpons can stop Einhorn from gaining the majority share essentially by returning Einhorn's initial $200 million investment yet allowing him to keep the 33 percent share of the team.

So, in essence, for the opportunity cost and other associated risks of loaning the Wilpons $200 million for three years, Einhorn would get one-third of the team. It's not exactly for free, since there is the cost of what he could have otherwise done with that money for three years, but it appears to be highly favorable terms.

What do the Wilpons get? In essence, they get to be solvent and continue to pay the money they owe to creditors and for team operations until the resolution of a $1 billion-plus lawsuit brought by the trustee trying to recover funds for the victims of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme. If the Wilpons lose big to trustee Irving Picard, the Einhorn terms will not matter since they will not have the financial means to retain the team. If there is a favorable lawsuit resolution and the Wilpons are solvent in three years, they can figure out a way to pay back Einhorn and stave off his becoming the majority owner.

Einhorn is shielded from any obligations should the Wilpons have an unfavorable resolution in the Ponzi scheme case, two sources said.

While Einhorn's route to majority ownership could not be corroborated, the source who provided the information correctly identified to ESPN a week ago that Einhorn would become the minority partner, and even said precisely which day an announcement would occur. The source also revealed that Einhorn flew to Milwaukee on Monday to meet with commissioner Bud Selig, which a second source confirmed.

This can't be true.

Worst case scenario for the Wilpons, they lose the franchise, best case scenario for the Wilpons, they gave away 33% of the franchise for free. If the worst case scenario plays out, this guy Einhorn guy becomes the Mets' majority owner for a total of $400MM, absurdly good for a NYC baseball team.

[NJTank]

Hall of Famer Carter's tumor likely malignant

That really sucks

[rams80]

Einhorn has agreed in principal to purchase roughly 33 percent of the team for $200 million, which will infuse cash and keep the organization solvent in the immediate future. In three years, according to the source, Einhorn has an option to up his stake to 60 percent, although principal owner Fred Wilpon and his family have an opportunity to block Einhorn from gaining that majority stake.

The source said the Wilpons can stop Einhorn from gaining the majority share essentially by returning Einhorn's initial $200 million investment yet allowing him to keep the 33 percent share of the team.

So, in essence, for the opportunity cost and other associated risks of loaning the Wilpons $200 million for three years, Einhorn would get one-third of the team. It's not exactly for free, since there is the cost of what he could have otherwise done with that money for three years, but it appears to be highly favorable terms.

What do the Wilpons get? In essence, they get to be solvent and continue to pay the money they owe to creditors and for team operations until the resolution of a $1 billion-plus lawsuit brought by the trustee trying to recover funds for the victims of Bernard Madoff's Ponzi scheme. If the Wilpons lose big to trustee Irving Picard, the Einhorn terms will not matter since they will not have the financial means to retain the team. If there is a favorable lawsuit resolution and the Wilpons are solvent in three years, they can figure out a way to pay back Einhorn and stave off his becoming the majority owner.

Einhorn is shielded from any obligations should the Wilpons have an unfavorable resolution in the Ponzi scheme case, two sources said.

While Einhorn's route to majority ownership could not be corroborated, the source who provided the information correctly identified to ESPN a week ago that Einhorn would become the minority partner, and even said precisely which day an announcement would occur. The source also revealed that Einhorn flew to Milwaukee on Monday to meet with commissioner Bud Selig, which a second source confirmed.

This can't be true.

Worst case scenario for the Wilpons, they lose the franchise, best case scenario for the Wilpons, they gave away 33% of the franchise for free. If the worst case scenario plays out, this guy Einhorn guy becomes the Mets' majority owner for a total of $400MM, absurdly good for a NYC baseball team.

$200 Million. And when you're in the financial straits the Wilpons are in, you actually can't do better than that if you want to even hope to continue to own the team.

[mania]

Hall of Famer Carter's tumor likely malignant

That really sucks

As if it couldn't get worse...

They're inoperable too.

Jeez.

[NJTank]

Of all the 1986 Mets players to get this type of diagnosis, the one who represented clean living and doing things right off the field. Very sad.

[BBTV]

Of all the 1986 Mets players to get this type of diagnosis, the one who represented clean living and doing things right off the field. Very sad.

So Doc, Strawberry, Hernandez, Dykstra, et al were actually smart for living it up while they were young, rich, and could get as much pvssy as they needed. You never know when sh t like this is going to hit you so it's hard to begrudge athletes for taking advantage of the resources they've been provided.

[NJTank]

Of all the 1986 Mets players to get this type of diagnosis, the one who represented clean living and doing things right off the field. Very sad.

So Doc, Strawberry, Hernandez, Dykstra, et al were actually smart for living it up while they were young, rich, and could get as much pvssy as they needed. You never know when sh t like this is going to hit you so it's hard to begrudge athletes for taking advantage of the resources they've been provided.

Well the 1986 Mets kicked things up to a level that may never be reached again. Ultimatly though it would prevent Doc and Straw and the Mets from being the dynasty they should have been and each paid in their own ways, and Mex was just the king of cool, so nothing he did effected him.

[MC2]

Stars and Stripes caps this year are soooo ugly.

[TrueYankee26]

Bartolo Colon CG shutout. O_o 1st for the Yankees since May 2009, 1st for Colon since July 2006.

[Viper]

The Brewers are now off the hook for the Bernie Brewer fiasco - it turns out that wasn't even the most embarrassing botched MLB promotional event of the month. Leave it to the Rays to steal that "honor" from them.

Chill out, what ya yelling for?

That's the question that the embarrassed Tampa Bay Rays should have thrown back at Avril Lavigne after the punk rawker let loose some profanities during the team's summer concert series at Tropicana Field on Saturday night.

[NJTank]

I thought the Rays wanted to draw more fans, wouldn't Avril Lavigne chase fans away?

[Lights Out]

Calling Avril Lavigne a punk rocker is like calling Soulja Boy a gangsta rapper. No matter how hard they try, the label doesn't fit.

[slapshot]

I've never understood why runners are allowed to steamroll the catcher when trying to score, but can't (or just choose not to) run over the 2nd or 3rd baseman when trying to avoid being tagged out. Same thing, right?

DEAD covered this earlier, but here's why it's legal (and only at home)...

Although double plays are different, a runner can't just slide through second or third. If you overslide, you can be tagged out. That's why runners slide into those bases, so they will stop on the base instead of past it.

Take-out slides are a bit different...by rule, the incoming runner is allowed the space in front of and on top of the base. If it's a close play, that's where the runner is going to be. So if the fielder is in that spot at the time of the catch/throw, the opportunity for incidental contact is imminent.

A runner is only allowed to make contact with the fielder by a slide, if the direction of the slide is a natural path between the two bases. And that definition of "natural path" is expanded as long as the incoming runner can reach the base with some part of his body. As long as the runner can reach the base, any contact made of the fielder is considered incidental, or just "part of the game".

Technically, if the fielder does not have the ball in his hand/glove (or the ball is within 6 feet, depending on umpire's judgment), he can be called out for obstruction, because he is in the runner's way. But that's rarely called.

Now, if the runner is barely halfway down the line at the time of the force out, he is supposed to give himself up, by either running out of the way of the throw/play, or ducking, or something. If the throw to first hits the retired runner, or otherwise gets in the way of the throw, then the incoming batter/runner to first can be considered out by way of interference.

That should cover the take-out slides at second or third.

For home plate, it's different. Runners cross home at full speed because they don't have to turn toward another base. Just like first.

Catchers are the only position players that generally block the base path to the plate. By interpretation, they can be obstructing the runner's path, but I doubt it's ever been called. The ball should be in their glove/hand, or within a few feet (receiving the throw) for them to legally block the basepath. Catchers block the path because they're heavily padded. Catchers are usually bigger players, and are protected mostly head to toe. So they can absorb the collisions.

Injuries do happen, and it's almost always because the catcher put himself at risk. If your leg is blocking the plate without the ball, the runner has the right of way. Since runners are going full speed, they have to barrel through the catcher since a safer sliding path is blocked. And if the catcher can't maintain possession after impact, he might let the runner score.

I was watching a Red Sox game a few years ago when there were two home plate collisions. I don't remember the opponent, it may have been the Mariners, so I'll use them as example. Red Sox player coming in from third, Ball comes in to the Mariners catcher. Clean collision happens, Mariners catcher's arm is bent awkwardly and broken. Next inning, opposite scenario. Mariners runner comes in, cleanly collides with Jason Varitek. Varitek is a veteran, and the replays showed his skill in the way he held the ball during the collision, and absorbed the impact better, and he was not injured.

[loogodude90]

Runners should be allowed to collide with the catcher. What kind of pansies are these modern-day athletes. Baseball I think was the last sport (along with hockey, I guess) to avoid much primadonna behavior. There goes that. If you want to be an MLB catcher, be prepared to take hits. They've been doing it for so long, why do today's catchers feel they deserve special treatment? And let's face it, a lot of us like seeing collisions at the plate. I know I do. I even think a lot of the time it's most exciting moment of an entire baseball game.

Also, as a somewhat interesting note, tonight's O's-M's game in Seattle had the lowest attendance in Safeco Field history (11,692).

[Dexter Morgan]

MLB announces AL All-Star leaders - Tex, Cano, A-Rod, Jeter, Martin, Granderson all in line for starting nods

LOL