THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I’d actually relate it more to the “Mine!” when A-Rod was running past the Blue Jays SS trying to catch a pop-up.  I think that was a conscious decision, like Jeter’s conscious decision to carry on faking for so long.

I still maintain the A-Rod glove slap wasn’t necessarily a conscious decision.  If it was a thought that passed through his head, I think it would have been pretty quickly rejected as “never gonna work”.

how are these *anything* alike?  one is an attempt to physically interfere with a ball in play, the other is an act of deception akin to framing a pitch.

I agree it’s basically equivalent to ARod’s offenses.
Also agree with Poz that is was some combination of sad and embarrassing to watch Jeter malinger afterward and let the trainer give him a full check up.  Once he was awarded 1st he should have gone there immediately and waved off the trainer.

However, I was pleased to see Jeter own up to it straight away when asked about it.  Some other players in that situation would continue to deny it. That would have been an even sadder spectacle.

henry, henry, henry.  First you ask me how they are similar, and then you go ahead and tell me how they are different!  Are you a politician?

They are similar because both players tried to embarrasingly get on base while using no baseball skills. 

These two guys and Sean Avery need to party together.

In football, if an offensive lineman knows he’s been beat, he will often commit blatant and deliberate holding.  There are similar situations in other sports as well, and all of these actions are seen as okay.  No one condemns the guy who fouls LeBron hard on the way to a sure layup as a cheat--he’s just doing his job.

For some reason, though, baseball looks at this differently, and ARod is a villain for engaging in a similar act--which, just as in the other sports, has a proscribed penalty in the rule books.  In other sports, ARod would be celebrated as a win-at-all-costs competitor.  I see no difference in Jeter and ARod’s actions.

#2—how are they alike? they both involve getting on base by going to embarrassing lengths.

Jeter’s reaction to the pitch was more deceptive than a catcher framing a pitch, and therefore worse.

Does pitch framing even matter that much as a tool of deception?  I would think umpires are so accustomed to it by now that its effects are minimal.

"Jeter’s reaction to the pitch was more deceptive than a catcher framing a pitch, and therefore worse.”

More deceptive?  Is that in metric units of deceptiveness, or is this an estimate you’ve made?

Pitch-framing is an act of knowingly trying to make one thing look like another, once the ball is no longer in play, in a way that isn’t addressed in the rules.  Same exact activity.

A-rod was interfering with a ball in play—trying to change the actual thing that took place, not the way it was perceived by umps—and interference is clearly addressed in the rules.

Framing, faking getting hit, holding up a ball in your glove that you trapped—those are all trying to fool an ump, not impact play. 

I’m really confused that anyone is coming out in support of the similarities.  I mean, they’re both Yankees, but that’s not the reason you’re linking them, is it?

As to ‘embarrassed’, what?  Why?  Because nobody ever tries to fool the umps?  I mean, did we not all watch the world cup?  Do we not watch basketball players flop around and QBs take a dive every time they’re brushed?

I know—I know—this is way more egregious for some reason.  I just don’t know what the reason is, and so far, all i’ve heard is that this is ‘worse’, with no indication of along which axis of measurement that’s true.  it lasted longer, i guess—is that why it’s worse?  because the trainer came out and looked at the hand of his $20mm franchise player?  that never happens, except constantly, in baseball and football.

Jeter was trying to influence perception.  Arod was trying to influence play.  The two things could not have less in common—except, again, for the fact taht they’re both Yankees.

Jeter was trying to influence perception.  Arod was trying to influence play

ARod ran by first base and the ball fell out of Arroyo’s glove.  When he was called out, he protested to the ump, demonstrated a running motion by flailing his arms, and tried to explain that his natural running motion knocked the ball out.

In other words, he was trying to influence the “perception” that it was purposeful.

Does that make the similarities more clear?

Henry, henry, henry.  Once again, you are being political, that all you see are differences while acknowledging no similarities at all.

Yes, trapping the ball, and then showing it to the umpire as if you caught it is the same kind of cheating.

What Jeter did though was not only turn as if he was hurt, but he grimaces his face, and rubbed his arm, and let the trainer touch him.  It wasn’t a split-second: “hey, here’s the ball”.

The better analogy is if Gardner traps the ball, shows the glove to the umpire, the umpire calls it safe, and then Gardner proceeds to run to the umpire screaming at him that he actually caught the ball, really laying it on thick.

It’s not a split-second “can I get away with this one”, but a “I’m going to lay it on thick right here”.

It’s embarrassing, as embarrassing as Sean Avery, and ARod.

All I can tell you is that we have proof that Jeter is a human being.  Accept that from your god.

A-rod was interfering with a ball in play—trying to change the actual thing that took place, not the way it was perceived by umps—and interference is clearly addressed in the rules.

When there is a dead ball, the result of the play is determined solely by what you call perception, so I’m not sure why this is supposed to be a point in Jeter’s favor.  ARod attempted to alter the outcome of the play by interfering, and Jeter attempted to alter the outcome of the play by acting. 

I find the point that interference is covered in the rules equally unpersuasive, since the penalty for interference is not punitive--it simply attempts to restore the outcome to what it would have been absent the interference.  In Jeter’s situation, the equivalent restoration would be for the pitch to simply be called a ball or foul as appropriate--which would have happened in lieu of Jeter’s acting.

"I hope to teach my own daughters to always play by the rules, and I would be furious if one of them did something like what Jeter did.”

Can we please stop saying that Jeter did not “play by the rules?”.  It may be dishonest and it may be poor sportsmanship, but the last time I looked, there was no prohibition of “acting like you were hit when you were not” in the MLB rulebook.

If baseball wanted to, they could put something in the rule book about “Intentionally trying to deceive the umpire” or, “All players must act and communicate in an honest and sportsmanlike demeanor at all times.” Or something like that.

As far as I know, there is nothing in the rules that prohibit Jeter from doing what he did or an infielder “decing” a runner, or an outfielder telling or showing the umpire that he caught a trapped ball.

If there is, please let me know what it is. If not, Poz and everyone else can stop calling it “not playing by the rules.”

That being said, of course there are similarities between what A-Rod and Jeter did.  Are they essentially the same?  Not even close, in my opinion. Not even close.

BTW, it looks to me like the ball may have hit Jeter’s elbow after it hit the bat.  Anyone else think that?

These plays are similar to hundreds of other plays, many of which have happened this season and probably even this month.  Expand it to sports in general and I don’t even know why this is newsworthy.  As MGL said, there’s no rule against doing what Jeter did. 

As for why Jeter and A-Rod are being singled out, the similarity is that they are both Yankees.  If these two were not on the same team, we’re not talking about how these plays are similar.

There is already something in the rulebook about pitchers intentionally deceiving baserunners. Not sure if there are any rules about deceiving umpires.

Rule 8.05 Comment: Umpires should bear in mind that the purpose of the balk rule is to prevent the pitcher from deliberately deceiving the base runner. If there is doubt in the umpire’s mind, the “intent” of the pitcher should govern. However, certain specifics should be borne in mind:
(a) Straddling the pitcher’s rubber without the ball is to be interpreted as intent to deceive and ruled a balk.
Taken from http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/official_info/official_rules/pitcher_8.jsp

btw—I also agree with MGL. This is not an issue of rules.
When I said they are equivalent, I meant they seem equally ethically wrong (according to my own highly calibrated ethical barometer); obviously they are not “the same” thing. Different actions and circumstances and results.
I don’t think the ball touched Jeter. Jeter himself admitted that, I belive.

Every sport has its own customs with regard for these things. There is no compelling logic behind these ‘unwritten rules’--it’s just what has evolved over the years. The outfielder holding up the ball after he has trapped it is seen as OK, as long as he doesn’t make a scene if he doesn’t get the call. If Jeter had touched his arm as if hit, dropped his bat, and started slowly walking towards first base, waiting for the ump’s call, that’s OK as long as he doesn’t really protest much if the ump doesn’t agree. To do what Jeter apparently did is embarrasingly over the line, IMO (I haven’t seen the actual video).

How do I know that? I don’t have objective knowledge, of course. It’s simply my sense or opinion, having watched MLB games for many years.

I would have no real problem if the umps squeezed Jeter’s strike zone for a few games. Baseball people say that the game can police itself just fine, thank you--and I think that’s OK unless it involves throwing at somebody’s head or something like that.

I tend to agree with David above, if we define what is correct or ethical by what the norm is.  Players in any (professional) sport will virtually NEVER correct an umpire just to be a good sport.  So that is deemed to be OK, ethically.  On the other hand, most players will not do what Jeter did.  Do I think what Jeter did was horrible?  No, I do not.  Do I think what A-Rod did with trying to knock the ball out of the fielder’s hand or even yelling, “I got it?” was over the (ethical) line.  Yes I do.  I’m not sure why - I just do.  My “reasoning” is like Potter Stewart’s, “I know pornography when I see it...”

Maybe I’m too simplistic, but I view the actions of Major Leaguers through the prism of what I would say to my daughter if she acted that way in Little League. Of the three acts mentioned, I’d let her know that calling for the ball and pretending to be hit are over the line. The glove slap thing, meh, whatever. To me, that seemed like a simple reaction to a bad situation, and, more importantly, thanks to the rules, there was no benefit to the act.

So, I think Jeter was wrong for the same reason I hate flopping in the NBA or in Duke games. What he did is no way analagous to a “give-up hold” in football or a “no lay-up” foul in basketball. In those scenarios, there is a penalty that’s enforced. Here, even if the ump recognizes the bad behavior for what it is, there’s no penalty.

Bowie;

A balk is not only a deception of the baserunner(s) but also it is not a dead ball, if he succeeds with his deception he can then throw a baserunner out.

MGL; The correct quote is “obscenity”, not “pornography”.  I think the difference is important.

"MGL; The correct quote is “obscenity”, not “pornography”.  I think the difference is important.”

No.

The quote does not include either, actually, and of course “obscenity” is more or a legal term in this context, as some pornography is obscene and some is not (in the eyes of the law), but he was specifically referring to the court’s definition of “hard core pornography.”

Here is part of the quote:

“...under the First and Fourteenth Amendments criminal laws in this area are constitutionally limited to hard-core pornography. 2 I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.”

From the NYT:

But Jeter probably had good cause to lather it on. After the ball hit his bat (and apparently grazed his uniform), it bounced into fair territory. The Rays even threw the ball to first, so Jeter knew that if the umpires reversed the initial call, he might be called out.

MGL,

Thanks for the correction.  My memory was that I had read it in the opinion, and seen it quoted.  So much for more than 20 year old memories.

I think I agree with Mike/#1 that I’d classify the Jeter HBP more with A-Rod yelling “Mine!” but I definitely see the similarities with the Arroyo situation as well.

After reading these comments and the ones at FG, I’m convinced that very few understand what “framing a pitch” means.

It does NOT mean, trying to pull balls into the strike zone. It DOES mean catching strikes in a such a way as to show the umpire where the ball really was.

Pitchers and managers will actually get on their catchers for trying to bring balls into the zone in an attempt to influence the umpire, because the most common result will be the umpire not calling a strike a strike if the catcher moves his glove too much.

As we teach, “you don’t frame a piece of crap painting, you frame a masterpiece”. So, when your pitcher paints the corner, you frame it. When it’s six inches off the plate, you throw it back to the pitcher.

The sad thing is that a catcher doesn’t even need to frame an outside corner pitch that’s off the plate because the ump can’t see through the catcher anyway.

Oh well, that’s all beside the point. Jeter’s actions and framing pitches are not equivalent. Posada tagging the runner with his glove while the ball was in his bare hand, would be a good equivalent. It’s cheating if it happens to you, it’s smart baseball or playing to win when you do it.

In the end, it’s only an issue because Mr. Perfect isn’t so perfect. I agree with most others that if this had been ARod or essentially anyone else it would have been viewed universally as cheating.

I hate using the word “cheating” to describe these things.  One definition of cheating is using deception and trickery to achieve a desired result, but in the context of baseball and other sports, cheating usually means breaking the rules. And of course no rules are being broken here.

Maddon in an interview said it best. He said that what Jeter did was perfectly acceptable, he would want and expect his own players to do the same, those things have been done for 100 years in baseball, yet Jeter carried it a bit too far.  As much as I dislike Maddon as a manager, I could not have said it better myself.

And yes, “framing a pitch” is simply catching a borderline pitch in such a way as it looks more like a strike to the umpire. That usually means not moving your glove as you catch it, however since catchers do that all the time, I don’t think it is as terrible as some people think…

so Jeter knew that if the umpires reversed the initial call, he might be called out.

Did Jeter actually say that, or did the NYT assume that was what happened?  Because there’s no way that outcome would have occurred, and on the bizarre chance the umpires look leave of their senses, the Yankees would have played the game under protest and won the protest.  You cannot, under any circumstances, rule a ball live after you’ve called it dead.  You’ve told everybody to stop the play - you can’t just have them pick it back up again.  I’m certain Jeter knows that, so this is probably just another example of why the NYT shouldn’t bother with sports.

”...the Yankees would have played the game under protest and won the protest.  You cannot, under any circumstances, rule a ball live after you’ve called it dead.”

Where is that rule?  When a ball is called a HR and then they reverse the call after watching the replay, that is exactly what occurs.  I believe that the umpires could have reversed the call on Jeter and then use their judgment to determine what would have happened…

The umpires never consider the possibility that the player would have been thrown out - they always award him a base (and as far as I know, it’s always been second base).  You’re telling me that they would have guesstimated what would have happened on a squibbler up the first base line which NOBODY played out at all?  I really just can’t see that happening, because they have absolutely no way of even guessing what would have happened on the play.  This isn’t a case of “would he be standing on second or third?” It’s “would he have been safe or out?” when he never came within 90 feet of first base, because the umpire told him not to.

Rule 5.02, in its entirety: After the umpire calls “Play” the ball is alive and in play and remains alive and in
play until for legal cause, or at the umpire’s call of “Time” suspending play, the ball
becomes dead. While the ball is dead no player may be put out, no bases may be run and no
runs may be scored, except that runners may advance one or more bases as the result of acts
which occurred while the ball was alive (such as, but not limited to a balk, an overthrow,
interference, or a home run or other fair ball hit out of the playing field).

Jeter could not be put out while the ball was dead (and it was dead as soon as the umpired called the HBP), but on a HR overturned, the batters may advance because the act of hitting the ball happened during a live play.

Just as important is rule 5.09:

The ball becomes dead and runners advance one base, or return to their bases, without liability to be put out, when --

(a) A pitched ball touches a batter, or his clothing, while in his legal batting position; runners, if forced, advance

As for the idea that

the Yankees would have played the game under protest and won the protest

I wouldn’t count on it. Assuming the Yankees did protest such a call, the odds of the protest being upheld are slim. Only 15 protests are known to have ever been upheld, just five in the last 55 years, and none since 1986.

Resumed Protested Games: http://www.retrosheet.org/protests.htm

Bruce Weber had a piece on the Jeter incident in the NYT recently. He tries to defend Jeter, but his argument is completely implausible. I have a blog post exploring the Jeter incident and what might count as cheating in sports here: http://theconsternationofphilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/09/philosophy-in-nyt-vol-1.html