|
|
Post by qwik3457bb on May 29, 2024 23:12:53 GMT -5
This 3 stars of the game is easy...
3rd star: Volpe for the leadoff triple that turned into a crucial insurance run in the 7th when Regnifo's throw to 3rd got away and went out of play, allowing Volpe to score. And a brilliant play in the 6th on the hard grounder by Schnauel. Diving stop, and he bounced the throw to Rizzo, right on target.
2nd star: Verdugo for the HR into the RF corner in the 4th that broke the 0-0 tie, and a brilliant catch of the sinking liner by Guillorme, plus making 1-2 other moderately difficult catches look easy.
1st star: Who else? Gil. 8 brilliant innings of 2 hit ball, allowing just the HR to O'Hoppe in the 7th. You might not have noticed, but he walked one guy in the first and another in the 3rd, but then didn't allowe another BB the last five innings. Oh, and he also struck out nine in going 8 innings for the first time in his career. Just a superb game by the rookie. Gill also lowereed his season's ERA to 1.99, and reamins 4th in the AL.
Wish the 3 stars were this obvious every night.
See? You can win a game if you stink with RISP...but only if you get lockdown pitching. And the Yanks did, with a digitalis moment from Holmes thrown in.
|
|
|
|
Post by qwik3457bb on May 29, 2024 23:13:39 GMT -5
Credit Verdugo for holding a very quick Rengifo to a single. Excellent play in left field. He gets to 2nd on the wild pitch anyway (FOTPO), but it was an excellent play anyway. |
|
|
|
Post by qwik3457bb on May 29, 2024 23:14:24 GMT -5
Boone doesn't have anyone else up, does he? Blake to the mound to try and settle down Holmes, futile effort. [bAusmus… Yes, but Boone is the Replacement Manager Whisperer™ |
|
|
|
Post by vdfebduderocks on May 29, 2024 23:14:36 GMT -5
Gil
Verdugo
Volpe
|
|
|
|
Post by qwik3457bb on May 29, 2024 23:19:08 GMT -5
OK, rubber game tomorrow, also at 9:38 or so, thankfully back on YES.
Carlos Rodon will pitch for the Yanks, trying to extend his own recent run of excellent starts to five in a row. Angels' 2nd best starter, Jose Soriano will oppose. Soriano is 2-5 with a 3.61 ERA, and 51 K's in 52 innings, with just 39 hits allowed, but also 23 BB. He's had 3 great games, 1 mediocre start and 1 bad start in his last 5.
OK, time to check notifications and respond where needed.
|
|
|
|
Post by qwik3457bb on May 29, 2024 23:33:52 GMT -5
OK, my last word on the interference is this. From what I've seen watching MLB for over 55 years, the umps WILL call interference if the runner makes ANY move that causes significant contact with a fielder trying to field a ball, or even if it forces the fielder to go around the runner and miss making a play. Soto's late step, even to the back of the bag, even if he waited as long as possible trying to avoid interfering, even if there is no other play to be had, even if the infield fly rule is called, is such a move. The ump will call that almost every time because the bump happened and the ball dropped immediately after. It sucks but if Soto gets his foot back on 2nd well before the bump, he has the right to the base, and then if Neto trips over him and does a triple somersault, breaking both hips and allowing all three runs to score, it's not interfernce and would not be called. It sucks that the rules allow for that on an infield fly rule play. Soto did the courteous thing and because of the bump, he and the Yanks are screwed by the call.
I'd be surprised if, unlike the call on Vaughn last week, MLB makes any comment on the call other than the call was correct. Surprised, but not shocked, because you never know what MLB will say about anything. Other than teams saying they can't afford to keep player, X, Y, or Z going free agent because they don't have enough revenue. That, they do say, every time, even though it's not true 99% of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by ypaterson on May 30, 2024 0:16:24 GMT -5
OK, my last word on the interference is this. From what I've seen watching MLB for over 55 years, the umps WILL call interference if the runner makes ANY move that causes significant contact with a fielder trying to field a ball, or even if it forces the fielder to go around the runner and miss making a play. Soto's late step, even to the back of the bag, even if he waited as long as possible trying to avoid interfering, even if there is no other play to be had, even if the infield fly rule is called, is such a move. The ump will call that almost every time because the bump happened and the ball dropped immediately after. It sucks but if Soto gets his foot back on 2nd well before the bump, he has the right to the base, and then if Neto trips over him and does a triple somersault, breaking both hips and allowing all three runs to score, it's not interfernce and would not be called. It sucks that the rules allow for that on an infield fly rule play. Soto did the courteous thing and because of the bump, he and the Yanks are screwed by the call. I'd be surprised if, unlike the call on Vaughn last week, MLB makes any comment on the call other than the call was correct. Surprised, but not shocked, because you never know what MLB will say about anything. Other than teams saying they can't afford to keep player, X, Y, or Z going free agent because they don't have enough revenue. That, they do say, every time, even though it's not true 99% of the time. I disagree. There was no interference because there was no play to be made. The IF call made catching the ball unnecessary. Soto had to get back to the bag or be forced off. As the IF is there to protect the runner...Soto had the right of way. Maybe obstruction ??? |
|
|
|
Post by kaybli on May 30, 2024 7:15:31 GMT -5
Woke up to a victory! I'll take it!
|
|
|
|
Post by ill636 on May 30, 2024 7:58:34 GMT -5
OK, my last word on the interference is this. From what I've seen watching MLB for over 55 years, the umps WILL call interference if the runner makes ANY move that causes significant contact with a fielder trying to field a ball, or even if it forces the fielder to go around the runner and miss making a play. Soto's late step, even to the back of the bag, even if he waited as long as possible trying to avoid interfering, even if there is no other play to be had, even if the infield fly rule is called, is such a move. The ump will call that almost every time because the bump happened and the ball dropped immediately after. It sucks but if Soto gets his foot back on 2nd well before the bump, he has the right to the base, and then if Neto trips over him and does a triple somersault, breaking both hips and allowing all three runs to score, it's not interfernce and would not be called. It sucks that the rules allow for that on an infield fly rule play. Soto did the courteous thing and because of the bump, he and the Yanks are screwed by the call. I'd be surprised if, unlike the call on Vaughn last week, MLB makes any comment on the call other than the call was correct. Surprised, but not shocked, because you never know what MLB will say about anything. Other than teams saying they can't afford to keep player, X, Y, or Z going free agent because they don't have enough revenue. That, they do say, every time, even though it's not true 99% of the time. I disagree. There was no interference because there was no play to be made. The IF call made catching the ball unnecessary. Soto had to get back to the bag or be forced off. As the IF is there to protect the runner...Soto had the right of way. Maybe obstruction ??? Sorry to disagree. The infield fly rule means the runner is out, BUT the ball is still in play. Therefore, the runner interfered with the catching of the ball. As was stated, if the runner was on base at the time, there is no interference. |
|
|
|
Post by azbob643 on May 30, 2024 8:12:59 GMT -5
Ironically, the rule is in place to protect the runner(s), but it can put baserunners in an awkward position, as it did with Soto.
IMO, the rule should be modified to read that once the IF Fly is called the hitter is out and the play is dead. As it is now, the runner(s) can still advance either by tagging if the ball is caught or simply running without tagging if the ball is not caught. Had Neto caught the ball with Soto off the bag all he would've had to do was tag Soto* for the DP. Soto had to get back to the bag the only way he did, which was not intentional interference.
I also don't believe anything was intentional on Neto's part. He was focused on the ball...don't think he even knew Soto was behind him.
*Actually, the more I think about it, wouldn't Soto have been doubled off by Neto simply stepping on the bag if Soto hadn't gotten back to the bag?
|
|
|
|
Post by rizzuto on May 30, 2024 8:38:03 GMT -5
Ironically, the rule is in place to protect the runner(s), but it can put baserunners in an awkward position, as it did with Soto. IMO, the rule should be modified to read that once the IF Fly is called the hitter is out and the play is dead. As it is now, the runner(s) can still advance either by tagging if the ball is caught or simply running without tagging if the ball is not caught. Had Neto caught the ball with Soto off the bag all he would've had to do was tag Soto* for the DP. Soto had to get back to the bag the only way he did, which was not intentional interference. I also don't believe anything was intentional on Neto's part. He was focused on the ball...don't think he even knew Soto was behind him. *Actually, the more I think about it, wouldn't Soto have been doubled off by Neto simply stepping on the bag if Soto hadn't gotten back to the bag? Yes, no tag necessary. Soto must return to the base to tag up if he wants to attempt to advance to the next base, which I have never even seen attempted in a baseball game previously. The play is live unless the catch is not made and rolls foul. Essentially, in practice, after the infield fly rule is called and the ball does not roll foul, since runners never advance or even attempt to do so, the only reason to keep the play alive is for umpires to subjectively call interference, which while giving umpires something to do, is far afield from the original purpose of the infield fly rule itself. |
|
|
|
Post by 1955nyyfan on May 30, 2024 8:48:07 GMT -5
OK, my last word on the interference is this. From what I've seen watching MLB for over 55 years, the umps WILL call interference if the runner makes ANY move that causes significant contact with a fielder trying to field a ball, or even if it forces the fielder to go around the runner and miss making a play. Soto's late step, even to the back of the bag, even if he waited as long as possible trying to avoid interfering, even if there is no other play to be had, even if the infield fly rule is called, is such a move. The ump will call that almost every time because the bump happened and the ball dropped immediately after. It sucks but if Soto gets his foot back on 2nd well before the bump, he has the right to the base, and then if Neto trips over him and does a triple somersault, breaking both hips and allowing all three runs to score, it's not interfernce and would not be called. It sucks that the rules allow for that on an infield fly rule play. Soto did the courteous thing and because of the bump, he and the Yanks are screwed by the call. I'd be surprised if, unlike the call on Vaughn last week, MLB makes any comment on the call other than the call was correct. Surprised, but not shocked, because you never know what MLB will say about anything. Other than teams saying they can't afford to keep player, X, Y, or Z going free agent because they don't have enough revenue. That, they do say, every time, even though it's not true 99% of the time. I disagree. There was no interference because there was no play to be made. The IF call made catching the ball unnecessary. Soto had to get back to the bag or be forced off. As the IF is there to protect the runner...Soto had the right of way. Maybe obstruction ??? Pat, I'm with you on this. Soto tried to avoid the fielder and has to be able to get back to the bag. Unusual play, been watching baseball for over 60 years and don't believe I've ever seen this one before. |
|
|
|
Post by 1955nyyfan on May 30, 2024 9:36:41 GMT -5
I've been a harsh critic of Cashman, but the trade of Jake Cave for Luis Gil may go down as the best he's ever made.
|
|
|
|
Post by bomberhojoe on May 30, 2024 9:44:07 GMT -5
I've been a harsh critic of Cashman, but the trade of Jake Cave for Luis Gil may go down as the best he's ever made. Even a blind squirrel finds a nut once in a while. |
|
|
|
Post by qwik3457bb on May 30, 2024 11:11:20 GMT -5
OK, my last word on the interference is this. From what I've seen watching MLB for over 55 years, the umps WILL call interference if the runner makes ANY move that causes significant contact with a fielder trying to field a ball, or even if it forces the fielder to go around the runner and miss making a play. Soto's late step, even to the back of the bag, even if he waited as long as possible trying to avoid interfering, even if there is no other play to be had, even if the infield fly rule is called, is such a move. The ump will call that almost every time because the bump happened and the ball dropped immediately after. It sucks but if Soto gets his foot back on 2nd well before the bump, he has the right to the base, and then if Neto trips over him and does a triple somersault, breaking both hips and allowing all three runs to score, it's not interfernce and would not be called. It sucks that the rules allow for that on an infield fly rule play. Soto did the courteous thing and because of the bump, he and the Yanks are screwed by the call. I'd be surprised if, unlike the call on Vaughn last week, MLB makes any comment on the call other than the call was correct. Surprised, but not shocked, because you never know what MLB will say about anything. Other than teams saying they can't afford to keep player, X, Y, or Z going free agent because they don't have enough revenue. That, they do say, every time, even though it's not true 99% of the time. I disagree. There was no interference because there was no play to be made. The IF call made catching the ball unnecessary. Soto had to get back to the bag or be forced off. As the IF is there to protect the runner...Soto had the right of way. Maybe obstruction ??? I don't think that's right. When Soto bumped Neto before he could catch the ball, he came from off the base to on it. The collision, no matter who caused it, prevented Neto from catching the ball. In that case, Neto was in the act of attemtping to field a batted ball. In my experience the umps almost always call interference when that happens (unless they consider the contact marginal, and the fielder still had a clear chance to make the play). Now, Neto may have been hovering at 2nd, hoping to draw contact and get an interference call to try to keep Soto off 2nd, but that becomes mind-reading and no ump is going to call obstruction because Soto felt he had to wait of 2nd because he might be called for interference, because while he's standing there waiting, there is no contact. As for what play there was to be made...If the contact with Soto prevents Neto from catching the ball, there's a small chance it could bounce funny, and get away from the multiple Angels fielder's who were nearby, and the infield fly rule allows runners to advance, at their own risk, as many bases as they can if the ball isn't caught.. In this unlikely scenario, that's the play that can and must be made, and that's why preventing Neto from catching the ball (umpire's judgment) is interference. Unfortunate, but that's the rules in this scenario. |
|
