THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Tango - So what is your point?  Should Morgan have been safe because the catcher was blocking the plate or should he have been out and maybe faced additional penalties because he initiated unnecessary contact because he didn’t slide?

This is the SL play that was referenced in the artilcle in your above link. http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=11487843&topic_id=8878754&c_id=mlbthat

In this play Morgan goes out of his way to hit the catcher when there wasn’t even a throw to the catcher.

And here is a good hard slide at home where the runner is safe, but it looks like he goes out of his way to take out the catcher’s legs?  What’s your ruling on this one?  http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=11487843&topic_id=8878754&c_id=mlbthat

Whoops! Wrong clip. Trying again. http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=15320031&topic_id=8877508&c_id=was

And from that article, wouldn’t be a catcher collision without this money quote,

“Obviously, his track record doesn’t help himself,” Hayes said. “Somebody who does that is looking to hurt somebody. But, you know, it’s baseball.”

I think Werth’s slide was clean. The catcher left the other part of the plate open, but to get there he would have had to do a semi-hook slide where he catches it with his hand or leg. That would have taken longer, so it was the smart play to go on a straight path to the plate.

If you’re going to purposely make contact with a catcher, sliding would be the worst way because you would be begging to turn your ankle.

Overall, I think the game can do away with collisions, but catchers can’t block the plate either. Because then every time a guy slides they are going to snap their ankle against the shin guards. IMO, no collisions and no plate blocking would eliminate any injuries at the plate that are not freak accidents.

IMO, Morgan should have been called safe due to obstruction. And Morgan said he didn’t slide because he thought he might get hurt. The runner should be allowed to slide or not slide. If the catcher is not obstructing, it shouldn’t matter.

In the second clip, I’d like to see Morgan called out for going out of the baseline to hit the catcher, and the play reviewed by the league for a suspension or fine.

The last clip is trickier because two things happened, 1) the catcher was blocking the plate with his foot, and 2) it looked like Werth went out of his way to hit the catcher. Since the obstruction happened first, I’d call the runner safe, and let the league review to decide whether to give Werth a 1 day suspension without pay.

Seems to me the Werth play is no different from thousands we see at second base every year.  The runner slid under the fielder and over the plate with his knees, body and arms.  That one would never even be considered a foul at second or third.  The only real difference is that he didn’t have to stop on the plate, but then the plate is also flush with the ground so it doesn’t help him stop either.

The Morgan play vs. St. Louis was absolutely dirty in my opinion.  The catcher was off the plate on the fair side, looking away from the plate towards first base.  Morgan could have slid safely, or even just run straight across the plate without touching the catcher.

In this latest incident, I think what makes the play bad is that he obviously put his shoulder into the catcher to go through him.  I can accept the line about being worried about turning an ankle, but in a collision like that either person or both can get hurt.  May not have been purposely malicious, but I think it was definitely reckless.

The interesting part of the third clip for me was the angle looking down the third base line to the catcher from the outfield camera.  Werth starts way to the outside of the foul line as he is supposed to.  By the time the third baseman is ready to make the throw, Werth is running well into the field side of the third base line, again as he is ssupposed to in order to force the throw to be high and toward first base.  The catcher appears to catch the ball before Werth slides across the plate and he may have had his foot on the plate.  Part of the rule changes that Tango has been proposing is that the runner not be allowed to cross the foul line coming home and/or that a force out should exist at the plate.  Under either scenario Werth would have been out.

Part of the reason that Werth might have been trying to slide into the catcher’s legs is to prevent him from making a play on Nix advancing to third.  Werth had no way of knowing that Nix had decided not to attempt to advance.

Peter/1: regarding my post, the runner stayed in the baseline the whole way through.  The catcher sticking his leg in the baseline is reckless.

***

Peter/1: regarding your link, that is reckless on the part of the runner.  It was stupid of the catcher to have his foot there to begin with, and he did remove it at the last second.  The runner didn’t have to hit the catcher.

I see this lack of respect alot in the NHL as well.  Just one guy puffing out his chest being borderline reckless, and then the other guy having to do the same thing.

***

Peter/3: Werth was outside his baseline.  This is EXACTLY like a batter bunting and running to 1B, and he stayed in fair territory when he’s close to the bag, so that the catcher doesn’t have a clear throw to the fielder.

Go to the 35 second clip.  What in the world is Werth does so far in the grass area.  I’d call him out for being out of his baseline.

Great clip, illustrating all the plays I hate in baseball: Alberto Gonzalez sliding wide of the bag and trying to kick Hanley Ramirez’ feet out from under him, Hayes covering the plate without the ball, and Morgan leading with a shoulder and then extending the forearm to bowl him over. I despise those two plays: the attempt to break up the double play by taking out a middle infielder and the collision at the plate.

If I wanted to see that crap, I could watch the NFL. Well, assuming they get over their labor trouble and actually have a season.

I hate catch obstruction as much as anyone, but I don’t think this was actual obstruction. Please feel free to correct me on the subtleties of the rules, but I thought catcher interference had to be without the ball.  Hayes clearly has possession of the ball before contact.  Yes, he was standing over the plate, and in position to obstruct, before he caught the ball, but that alone is not obstruction right?  You have to somehow hinder the progress of a runner without the ball, not simply be in the basepath at any point in time without the ball.  So, unless I’m somehow misreading or simply missed something in the the rules, I don’t think this was obstruction.

Now, I do agree that a number of things should be done to prevent these kinds of injuries.  For one, catchers do stand over the plate before catching the ball in an attempt to obstruct the runner should they not have time to apply the tag before the runner gets to the plate.  However, I don’t know how you would enforce such an “attempt to obstruct” rule.  Possibly on a case by case bases with fines, but that’s a pretty big gray area.  Then, we should also make tackling the catcher illegal, with a penalty of a fine.  If you try to calm it down on both sides, offensive and defense, runners will feel safe enough to slide, just like at other bases, and catchers won’t feel the need to block the plate from an on coming tackle.

Peter/1: regarding my post, the runner stayed in the baseline the whole way through.  The catcher sticking his leg in the baseline is reckless.

I assume that you are commenting from the point of view of your proposed rule changes and not the actual rules that exist now.  The catcher is not standing between the runner and the plate, he is standing on the plate clearly giving the front edge of the plate to the runner.  If Morgan slides he is safe and if there is any contact it is much less severe and less likely to produce injury.  So Morgan chooses a course of action that not only causes him to be out instead of safe decreasing his team’s chance of winning the game, but also insures a violent collision increasing the chance of injury which actually does occur.  The catcher, on the other hand, although he chooses a course of action that may lead to a collision, does so completely within the existing rules and is also the only possibility that can and does lead to the runner being out at the plate.

Peter/3: Werth was outside his baseline.  This is EXACTLY like a batter bunting and running to 1B, and he stayed in fair territory when he’s close to the bag, so that the catcher doesn’t have a clear throw to the fielder

I comment on this play in post #8 which perhaps you missed.  Werth does exactly what he should do on this play under the existing rules, so I assume you are commenting on what you would like to see the rules to be.  In that case your rule changes would seem to go beyond that of preventing home plate collisions and preventing injuries as this appears to be the one play out of the 3 where no collision occurs.  The baseline rule only only pertains to runners going out of their way to avoid a tag and establishs the runners baseline at the time the fielder has possession of the ball and in postion to make a tag, not when the ball was hit. Werth does everything within the existing rules to increase the probability they he and his team mates will all be safe WITHOUT the intention of causing collision and injury.  His slide carries him through the plate area even though it is also clearly intended to disrupt the catcher.  But if Nix had been running to third and the catcher had decided that there was no chance in tagging the sliding Werth at the plate for an out, the catcher still would have had the option of catching the high throw, stepping away from the plate area, and throwing to third for the possible out on Nix. 

If you think there should be a runners box along the outside of the 3d base line like there is on the 1st base line for the purpose of giving a clear throw to the plate that is a separate issue than changing the rules to best prevent collisions and injuries at the plate.

#7, you nailed it.

BTW, the baseline, or basepath, is 3 ft from the foul line, fair or foul, except to 1B when the runer must stay on the fould side of the basepath.

Running outside the basepath is fine if there is no play on the runner, but if you go outside the basepath to avoid a tag, you are out.

Just make every play at the plate a force out like at 1B.  That’s the only way you are going to avoid anyone getting hurt.  Never bothered anyone until Posey got hurt.

pft/13: does the rule book actually say “3 feet”, or is this just some unwritten rule?  I’m going to presume you made it up unless you quote the actual rule.

By the way, the MLB rule book is one of the worst written documents in the world.

From the MLB rulebook:

7.08
Any runner is out when --
(a) (1) He runs more than three feet away from his baseline to avoid being tagged unless his action is to avoid interference with a fielder fielding a batted ball. A runner’s baseline is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely

As for running inside the foul line on the way to first base,

6.05
A batter is out when --

(k) In running the last half of the distance from home base to first base, while the ball is being fielded to first base, he runs outside (to the right of) the three-foot line, or inside (to the left of) the foul line, and in the umpire’s judgment in so doing interferes with the fielder taking the throw at first base, in which case the ball is dead; except that he may run outside (to the right of) the threefoot line or inside (to the left of) the foul line to avoid a fielder attempting to field a batted ball;
Rule 6.05(k) Comment: The lines marking the three-foot lane are a part of that lane and a batter- runner is required to have both feet within the three-foot lane or on the lines marking the lane. The batter-runner is permitted to exit the three-foot lane by means of a step, stride, reach or slide in the immediate vicinity of first base for the sole purpose of touching first base.

I’d read that to mean that you can run inside the foul line without a problem as long as you don’t actively interfere with the 1B as he attempts to field a throw. But that’s the problem with the rulebook - it leaves too much to interpretation and umpire discretion.

How does 7.08 apply to Werth?  There’s no tag play.  And it talks about running away from his baseline to AVOID being tagged.  In this case, if you want to suggest that he’s being “tagged”, he’s actually running INTO the guy who would eventually apply the tag.

In the Werth play, since he’s starting from the foul territory, his baseline would have to remain in the foul territory.

By the way, thanks for pulling up the quote.

I don’t think 7.08 applies to Werth at all. He makes no attempt to avoid a tag and certainly doesn’t deviate more than 3 feet from his established line. I agree with the general consensus that it’s no different from breaking up the double play at second, and is far less egregious than many cases you’ll see at second. It still looks unnecessary to me.

mcsnide: I mean that this “three foot rule” does not apply at all.  That Werth ran outside his baseline as soon as he crossed onto the grass.

He is given leeway to run three feet into fair territory only if he’s in the tag-event.  Without a tag event, the three foot rule doesn’t apply.

What would apply is “stay in your baseline” (which is a rule I’m presuming).  So, under that presumption, Werth should have been called out when he crossed over the foul line, or at the very least when he touched the grass.

mcsnide: I mean that this “three foot rule” does not apply at all.  That Werth ran outside his baseline as soon as he crossed onto the grass.

Tango - I don’t understand how you can be reading the current rule that way.  The rule clearly states:
A runner’s baseline is established when the tag attempt occurs and is a straight line from the runner to the base he is attempting to reach safely

That reads for me that there is a no established “baseline” at all UNTIL the fielder in front of the runner has the ball in hand so that he is ready to apply a tag.  Runners run more or less directly from base to base because it is the most efficient and most likely way for them to be safe under most conditions.  But I see no current rule that compels them to do so if, like the Werth play, a player feels that it is to his best advantage not to do so.

Peter/20: this sounds shocking to me. 

Let’s say you have this scenario: ARod is on third base, and Cano hits a what will end up as a triple down the line against the A’s.  ARod can crawl and he’ll score.

Instead, ARod chooses to run to Dallas Braden’s mound, pick up the rosin bag, drop it, and then make a beeline for homeplate.

And you are saying that there’s nothing in the rule that requires that ARod establish or follow a baseline that would conform to something approaching the foul line between third and home?

(Other than he has to show an effort that he has not abandoned his baseline.)

Tango/21:
I think Peter is right unless there is some other rule that says a runner can’t touch the mound, touch a foreign object (the rosin bag), etc.  Watch a runner round first base on a presumed double.  They often run WAY out of the first base line into the coach’s box to make a more smooth, direct line toward second.

The rulebook occasionally uses the word baseline in a generic sense, for instance referring to leaving the baseline after crossing 1st base (7.08.a.2) or referring to leaving the baseline to break up a double play (6.05.m), so I’m not sure that I’d say its not defined without a tag attempt.

That said, having read through the entire rule on runners, there doesn’t seem to be a penalty for leaving the baseline except for those defined instances. So, yeah, as absurd as it is, I don’t see anything that would specifically rule A-Rod out in your scenario. An ump could, of course, simply use his power in Rule 9.01.c to make up something on the spot:

Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.

Oh, and based on this, Werth is definitely fine.

I just want to point out that the Morgan play does show why plays at the plate ARE different than plays at 2nd or 3rd.  On a play at 3rd, the fielder has no concern that the runner will come through him at full speed and can therefore safely set up straddling or slightly behind the base.  That’s because the runner has to engage in a strategy that bring his velocity to zero at the base.  At home, no such constraint exists, so Morgan is going to come through the plate at full speed.  Even if he slides, he’s still coming through the catcher straddling or behind the plate.  So, the contact is pretty much guaranteed, even if catchers go to a straddle and tag play.  That makes me more open to the idea of more radical solutions.

Great job guys.  A bunch of Straight Arrows.

We can go with a “must slide” rule, but you need to disincentivize the catcher from blocking.  The other fielders don’t block because they aren’t wearing pads.

The pads are there, really, to block pitches, not feet.

One option is to extend the size of home plate. Unfortunately, the plate itself is so iconic.  You can make it a full square, at 17 x 17, or extend further to 17 x 29.  If you have to, keep it to its classic shape, but extend it by 12 inches.  With more room, it probably makes it much harder to block.

(Of course, ball-strikes can’t be called based on the new full plate.)

I have a more radical suggestion, make the plate raised and padded, like the other bases.  That will slow down the sliding player, and possibly also incentivize hook-type slides, since it will be easier to touch when going by.  It makes it easier to tell if it was touched also (especially on replay). 

Problems are RHBs tripping over it, and pitches hitting it.

YEah, that’s the problem with the home plate being flat, is that the runner is going to want to come in somewhere near the middle.  That’s why, if you stretch it out, he gets more real estate.

Maybe this is a good example of a catcher blocking the plate completely; in other words, not giving the front edge as Peter/12 said the Hayes play was.  Here, the catcher (Wieters) is clearly between the runner (Jeter) and home plate.

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=14145745

Perfect example.

IF catchers believe that they have the right to do that, then I cannot fault the runner when a catcher happens to give him part of home plate.  Basically, Wieters is ruining it for all the other catchers, with his example.

Really, the catchers would need to come out as a force to say what the protocol is that they should follow.

Goalies in hockey are pretty vocal, and will speak up.

Catchers don’t do that.  So, it ends up being a wild west scenario.

[1] Weiters was intending to block the plate (if he could have gotten the throw earlier, I think he would put all 6’5 265 right in front of the plate, and really laid Jeter out), but he also jumped to catch the throw and did a “good job” of getting his feet/guards down in between the runner and plate (it’s probably a more difficult play than he made it look). I would consider that blocking, and something that should vanish.

[2] Even though he did not block the plate in the regard we traditionally think, Jeter had two choices: (A) just “give up” and let em tag ya. Everyone avoids injury, or (B) slide right into the shin guards: Who’s gonna win that battle Matt Weiters shin guards or Derek Jeter’s ankles?

In that situation I don’t even consider a hook slide an option, as I would classify that as a “give up” play since there’s really no chance of success.

On plays like that Weiters should be required to be “in front” of the plate (as in on the second base side). The MLB should go so far as to designate the dirt area in front of the plate as being the “Catcher’s Crease” (like goalies). That’s where they stand, that’s where they catch the ball, and you can’t hit them when they’re in there. That’s where catchers are taught to go on BIP when there might be a play anyway.

Now, after they catch it, they can move, but now you’ve got a situation of two guys prepared for contact.

I agree about the catcher’s crease, and the umps would have to be as vigilant as they would be with batters in the box.

Why is there even a batters box?  Why not let the batter stand right above the plate if he wants.  Oh.  Right.  We don’t want them to get hurt with a stray pitched ball, and it would happen quite often in that case.

But, hey, that would be baseball, no?  Tradition would have dictated that batters can stand wherever they want, and they man-up as they want.

This is why I can’t stand inertia as the defense.

Exactly.

Baseball used to have take out slides at other bases where runners would slide in “spikes high” and kick the fielder to toppple him, knock the ball loose, or to kick the glove so it would come off ... and the runner would be safe.

Baseball saw the absurdity of the situation and removed it, even though it was probably very exciting and entertaining to watch.

They could do the same thing with home plate collisions (blocks & plows), and after a season we’d likely not notice, and after a decade we’d likely look back and say “Duh, why’d they/we ever allow that in the first place?”

or (B) slide right into the shin guards: Who’s gonna win that battle Matt Weiters shin guards or Derek Jeter’s ankles?

Circle - Do you have any citations of this kind of injury to the runner actually happening in MLB?  Is it a common occurrence?  Once every year?  Once every 5 years?  In my experience most sliding injuries come on late slides to fixed bases and I can’t recall many of those at the professional level.  But I don’t watch enough baseball to qualify as an expert, so since you are making the argument perhaps you have more information available.

Circle - Do you have any citations of this kind of injury to the runner actually happening in MLB?  Is it a common occurrence?  Once every year?  Once every 5 years?

I don’t, and my guess it doesn’t happen often in MLB. With 162 games, there just isn’t enough incentive for a runner to try and slide “feet first” through the catcher that’s blocking the plate. It’s suicide. For one run? Even the winning run in one game, 0.6% of the season.

Most runners are going to slide “around” or “plow through”. When they slide around, they get the nice “courtesy tag”, as it’s in a way a “silent agreement” (like boxing has). “I won’t really try and get the plate, and you won’t really lay it on me.” The runner accepts that the catcher has the ball and is blocking the plate and that the catcher has “won”. Might as well just cut it short and veer straight to the dugout.

I would not be surprised, at the ML level, if there are less than 10 instances per year where the runner slides feet first into a catcher that is already blocking the plate. That runner is going to slide around, or try to truck.

Jeter only slid in because Weiters wasn’t “lineman blocking” the plate and/or jumped. Had Weiters been all “fullback” in front of the plate, Jeter would have never attempted to slide into him.

In THAT regard, runners do a pretty good policing themselves to avoid risk ... especially b/c it’s them at risk. The other situations where the catcher is at risk, the runners are so strict.

But, no, I don’t have any MLB data (and am not really claiming to). The worst of the bunch, Robin Ventura, got his spike caught on the side of the plate. Go figure.

The other situations where the catcher is at risk, the runners are so strict.

Sorry, AREN’T so strict.