Jump to content

2014 MLB Offseason


Gary

Recommended Posts

The Wussification of America continues, as a former Catcher I loved when people tried to run me over. This is sad news.

It's too easy to take a shot here. I'll just say that it's funny how the people who crave the most violence in sports and bitch about players being weak are those who are completely incapable of doing anything other than sitting their asses on a couch and watching.

Seriously, why is home plate different than any other base? You can run through first base too, but there's rarely any collisions there.

Darren Daulton had 6 or 7 knee surgeries due to injuries sustained when he was barreled in to or slid in to while trying to catch a ball while his leg was in a prone position. I don't understand how full blown contact is allowed in one very specific case, but outlawed everywhere else.

People were up in arms when A-Rod slapped the ball out of the first basemen's glove a few years ago. They called him a baby, or a jerk, or whatever. How is that any different than when a catcher is standing there with the ball, and a player (who has a 90 foot head start) barrels in to him trying to make him drop it?

As long as catchers aren't allowed to stand there blocking the plate, then I don't see the issue with a runner being forced to slide or run through, just like at any other base. Just because a catcher has shin guards and a chest protector it doesn't mean he's in position to take hits.

Rules for home can't be just like first because every play at first is a force-out. That's rarely the case at home. Even when the force is on at home with the bases loaded, there are almost never collisions because the catcher just has his foot on the corner of the plate and the runner is out when he catches the ball.

Obviously the new rule (when finalized) is going to have to allow for tag plays, unlike first base. If they want to make the rule, fine, but it will lead to other problems. It gives the umpires more discretion in terms of deciding whether the player wanted to hit the catcher or made effort to avoid him, it could lead to catchers inching into the basepath to get hit so the run would be taken off the board. That run could be removed even if the runner touches the plate without being tagged. I don't like giving the umpires more power at a time half the fans are screaming for freaking computer strikezones.There's no way this rule goes smoothly. I am against it more on principle because I think there's not a good way to administer it and it could lead to more problems.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 464
  • Created
  • Last Reply

I honestly thing that MLB needed more of a "culture" change than a "rule" change.

The rules should remain as is and catchers should stop blocking the plate like that. Times are changing and a player is now a 7-figure investment and they should be able to not block the plate without their manhood being called into question. Posey was right in front of the plate and then he complained that a runner wanted to find a way to get to home plate. He did not have to be there. He's the problem. Not the runner and not the rules.

Yeah, this has too many opportunities to have additional controversial calls. Good luck with all of this, umps and MLB.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly thing that MLB needed more of a "culture" change than a "rule" change.

The rules should remain as is and catchers should stop blocking the plate like that. Times are changing and a player is now a 7-figure investment and they should be able to not block the plate without their manhood being called into question. Posey was right in front of the plate and then he complained that a runner wanted to find a way to get to home plate. He did not have to be there. He's the problem. Not the runner and not the rules.

Yeah, this has too many opportunities to have additional controversial calls. Good luck with all of this, umps and MLB.

Problem is it wasn't just catcher blocking the plate. Take the most obvious recent example of Posey. He wasn't anywhere near the plate nor was he blocking it but he was still targeted by the runner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks like Oakland has released yet more renderings of yet another ballpark that they probably will never build for the A's.

628x471.jpg

oakland-as-port-of-oakland-ballpark-rend

This time it's a $500 million dollar ballpark at Howard Terminal near Jack London Square in downtown Oakland (on a site that would cost another $300 million to make ready with infrastructure and toxic waste cleanup...). But it's pretty! And on the waterfront! And it has big cranes on the site to make sure you don't confuse it with AT&T Park across the bay!

I don't know my Oakland geography, but wouldn't the water be on the west side of the ballpark? In other words, the batters would be facing the afternoon sun?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly thing that MLB needed more of a "culture" change than a "rule" change.

The rules should remain as is and catchers should stop blocking the plate like that. Times are changing and a player is now a 7-figure investment and they should be able to not block the plate without their manhood being called into question. Posey was right in front of the plate and then he complained that a runner wanted to find a way to get to home plate. He did not have to be there. He's the problem. Not the runner and not the rules.

Yeah, this has too many opportunities to have additional controversial calls. Good luck with all of this, umps and MLB.

Problem is it wasn't just catcher blocking the plate. Take the most obvious recent example of Posey. He wasn't anywhere near the plate nor was he blocking it but he was still targeted by the runner.

I just took another look at it and that shows how much we talk about "blocking the plate". I would not say "he was not anywhere near the plate", as his head probably broke the plane of the foul line. However, he was definitely targeted.

The point regarding the difficulty in umping this remains. How much closer would Posey have to get before he's either fair game or obstructing? The runner obviously could have scored without making contact, but that's going to be a tough call when the catcher has 80% + of the plate "covered".

On the other hand, Posey did not really deserve to get hit there...so perhaps something should be done, but I would not want to be the one writing the rule.

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How will calling these plays at home be any different than calling it at 2nd or 3rd where the rules are now essentially the same? If they were gonna have difficulties at home they'd have them at 2nd or 3rd already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How will calling these plays at home be any different than calling it at 2nd or 3rd where the rules are now essentially the same? If they were gonna have difficulties at home they'd have them at 2nd or 3rd already.

Pretty much. Home is now no different than second or third. And frankly I'm not entirely sure why it wasn't the same in the first place. Just because the catcher has a chest protector on he's suddenly free game to destroy?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How will calling these plays at home be any different than calling it at 2nd or 3rd where the rules are now essentially the same? If they were gonna have difficulties at home they'd have them at 2nd or 3rd already.

Pretty much. Home is now no different than second or third. And frankly I'm not entirely sure why it wasn't the same in the first place. Just because the catcher has a chest protector on he's suddenly free game to destroy?

I agree, though I'll add that the difference is that you can run through home, so there's no real advantage to sliding other than to avoid a tag.

Still shouldn't be too hard to police though.

"The views expressed here are mine and do not reflect the official opinion of my employer or the organization through which the Internet was accessed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There aren't many bang-bang plays at third. Most of the plays at second which are relevent are force-outs with attempted double play turns. Once again, there is rarely ever a force at home. The SS/2B is catching the ball and trying not to get leveled while throwing to first. He's not trying to block the baserunner and swipe-tag him before he gets to second. They aren't really the same.

How will calling these plays at home be any different than calling it at 2nd or 3rd where the rules are now essentially the same? If they were gonna have difficulties at home they'd have them at 2nd or 3rd already.

Pretty much. Home is now no different than second or third. And frankly I'm not entirely sure why it wasn't the same in the first place. Just because the catcher has a chest protector on he's suddenly free game to destroy?

I agree, though I'll add that the difference is that you can run through home, so there's no real advantage to sliding other than to avoid a tag.

Still shouldn't be too hard to police though.

Guys slide because 1) They swipe over the plate, rather than worrying about potentially stepping over the catcher and having to touch the plate with their feet; and 2) it's more difficult to throw them off their path. If you are sliding, it's harder to push the runner out of the way. However, if you are running, projected to come down on the plate in stride with your right foot, the catcher bumping you or hitting your foot in midair changes your path.

OldRomanSig2.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every stolen base that draws a throw at 2nd or 3rd is a bang bang play that requires a tag. Every batter stretching a single to a double or triple that draws a throw is a bang bang play. This is what plays at the plate will begin to look like. Hardly game changing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The water is on the south side of the park. The first baseline would be the west side.

Oakland1_zps71076775.png

Oakland2_zpsa34566ae.png

That map is the irony of ironies regarding the A's. IF this were to ever come to fruition (and mind you I don't think it ever will), the A's would within sight of the Giants. You'd be able to see the parks from each other. It amazes me the Giants prefer that to the A's being nearly 50 miles away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rumor has it that Golden State Warriors owner Joe Lacob is interested in buying the A's and keeping them in Oakland.

He's apparently one of 3 groups now interested. Problem is... the A's aren't for sale. Wolff has been very clear on that. Given that he's been giving more and more responsibility over to his son Keith it seems quite possible he's setting up a generational thing and won't ever have any interest in selling. Particularly since the Coliseum, as bad as it is, has been a very profitable venue for Wolff thanks to revenue sharing (that and the value of the team more than doubling in 8 years.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That map is the irony of ironies regarding the A's. IF this were to ever come to fruition (and mind you I don't think it ever will), the A's would within sight of the Giants. You'd be able to see the parks from each other. It amazes me the Giants prefer that to the A's being nearly 50 miles away.

I thought the Oakland Coliseum already was within sight of AT&T Park?

spacer.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That map is the irony of ironies regarding the A's. IF this were to ever come to fruition (and mind you I don't think it ever will), the A's would within sight of the Giants. You'd be able to see the parks from each other. It amazes me the Giants prefer that to the A's being nearly 50 miles away.

I thought the Oakland Coliseum already was within sight of AT&T Park?

Only if you have a telescope... or are Superman

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That map is the irony of ironies regarding the A's. IF this were to ever come to fruition (and mind you I don't think it ever will), the A's would within sight of the Giants. You'd be able to see the parks from each other. It amazes me the Giants prefer that to the A's being nearly 50 miles away.

I thought the Oakland Coliseum already was within sight of AT&T Park?

Only if you have a telescope... or are Superman

Yeah, it's visible, but only from a very limited section of AT&T. And, yeah, you'd at least need high powered binoculars to see it and would have to know exactly where it is.

I actually really like the idea of parks that are so close to one another they can be seen across the bay with the naked eye, but it's never gonna happen.

spacer.png

On 11/19/2012 at 7:23 PM, oldschoolvikings said:
She’s still half convinced “Chris Creamer” is a porn site.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has happened...

 

Disclaimer: If this comment is about an NBA uniform from 2017-2018 or later, do not constitute a lack of acknowledgement of the corporate logo to mean anything other than "the corporate logo is terrible and makes the uniform significantly worse."

 

BADGERS TWINS VIKINGS TIMBERWOLVES WILD

POTD (Shared)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.