FanDuel - WFBC

October 03, 2012

SportsFilter: The Wednesday Huddle:

A place to discuss the sports stories that aren't making news, share links that aren't quite front-page material, and diagram plays on your hand. Remember to count to five Mississippi before commenting in anger.

posted by huddle to general at 06:00 AM - 18 comments

Michael Morse has his single overturned into a grand slam and is told to go back home to run around the bases

posted by tommytrump at 04:10 PM on October 03

...is told to go back home to run around the bases

The ball was dead as soon as it made contact with an object beyond the regular outfield fence. Thus, any action occurring after the ball went out of play is nullified. The only question I have is whether or not Morse reached first base before the ball went out. If he did, then he should not have had to return to the plate but only to first. Even if he had not reached first before the ball went out, he correctly was required to touch first but should not have been required to return all the way to the plate. As for the other runners being required to return to the base last occupied, this was probably done to avoid any possible objections that a runner had passed a preceding runner. While it was confusing, the umpires made sure they got it right and that there was no rule violation as a result of the change of call.

posted by Howard_T at 05:18 PM on October 03

Oh my god. The part where he fakes his homerun swing at the plate is comedy gold.

Howard's right that they had to have them return to their original places, in order, and then formally run the bases, because of the explicit rule about not passing another runner (even in a homerun trot), so they probably were trying to make it pristine and avoid any possible challenge from St. Louis arising from their own handling of the replay situation.

Still, that was the most bizarre and anticlimactic grand slam I've ever seen. The minutes of waiting and the weird choreography from the umps took the wind out of their sails, so all they could muster was a "meh" of a high five. :)

posted by hincandenza at 05:21 PM on October 03

The part where he fakes his homerun swing at the plate is comedy gold.

I object. His fake swing would have sent the ball to left; the actual hit was to right. Send him back and make him do it again.

posted by tahoemoj at 05:34 PM on October 03

Bobby V keeps up the good work in Boston. They'll bring home the pennant next year for sure.

posted by feloniousmonk at 05:52 PM on October 03

The Rangers are all but gift wrapping the AL West Division title and slapping a big glittery bow on it. Yuck.

posted by Ufez Jones at 05:54 PM on October 03

Yeah, that's kind of a big collapse for them... but good on Oakland, they needed a sweep and looks like they're going to get it, pending six more outs (but this is an amazing game, and 3 runs ain't nothing for a good team to get in two innings).

So it'll be Texas and Baltimore in a one game playoff, unless Baltimore wins tonight, along with the Red Sox. That faint sound you hear right now is my sardonic laughter.

posted by hincandenza at 06:21 PM on October 03

Sorry, I had a witty retort, but I just threw my laptop across the room.

Going to walk the dog now.

posted by Ufez Jones at 06:41 PM on October 03

You have to think Cabrera only plays for a single at-bat today...now that Hamilton doesn't have the home runs, Trout would have to go 7/7 to pass him at present.

posted by dfleming at 07:59 PM on October 03

Hopefully, Valentine has eaten his last sirloin in Saugus.

posted by beaverboard at 08:09 PM on October 03

Cabrera will play a full game, because:

  • There's a certain honor in it; Ted Williams playing the doubleheader to finish above .400 is the comparison that would be negatively made if Cabrera sat out.
  • Trout led off the sixth with a hit and is 1-2 today, so probably gets one more PA; even another hit doesn't put him above .326 (.32558).
  • If Trout gets one more hit to go 2-3, Cabrera would have to go 0-10 to fall below him.
So unless that Seattle game goes to extras and Trout racks up 2-3 more hits, and the Tigers go to extras with Cabrera sporting an 0-fer (at which point, Leland would pull him- they'll know when he's at the point where one more at bat would risk him losing the TC), then Cabrera has this completely sewn up. He literally can't lose unless he Tin Cups it. Well, or if Granderson hits 3 homeruns in the remaining 4.5 innings in New York.


Which... wow. The first Triple Crown in 45 years (and I'd argue he should be MVP, but I know I'm in the minority among the internet crowd). Baseball is some kind of sport...

posted by hincandenza at 08:31 PM on October 03

I look at the MVP vote this way: whether the voter puts Trout or Cabrera at #1 on their ballot is inconsequential. But if they don't put the other at #2, they should never be allowed to vote again...

posted by MeatSaber at 09:08 PM on October 03

that's not a bad way of looking at it. Do you remember the NY writer who left Pedro off the 1999 ballot altogether- and that single omission kept him from the MVP (the same writer had put a NY pitcher on his ballot the previous year, of course)?

So how would you enforce such a thing- if a top 2 or 3 vote getter is not on your ballot at all, you lose voting rights for say 5 years? I've long thought they should have such a rule for the HoF, to weed out the cantankerous "No one should be unanimous" bloc (if a player gets 95%+, and you didnt vote for him, you don't get to vote for 5 years). But isn't there a risk of group think/herd mentality, where once a guy gets to 85%, he's basically at 100% because people are now scared to *not* for him?

posted by hincandenza at 09:26 PM on October 03

that's not a bad way of looking at it. Do you remember the NY writer who left Pedro off the 1999 ballot altogether- and that single omission kept him from the MVP (the same writer had put a NY pitcher on his ballot the previous year, of course)?

You're missing the high point of that moment.
His reasoning for leaving Pedro off the ballot was that he didn't believe pitchers should win the MVP...but forgot that he had submitted an MVP ballot the previous season that had TWO pitchers on it.

posted by grum@work at 10:02 PM on October 03

You have to think Cabrera only plays for a single at-bat today

There was some potential mathematical high drama to be had today.

If Trout went 4-for-4, and Cabrera went 0-for-4, then Trout would have won the batting title by just a hair more than .0005

posted by grum@work at 10:08 PM on October 03

grum: that's what I meant when I mentioned the same write had put a NY pitcher on his ballot the previous year, as he famously claimed at the time that pitchers shouldn't win. It's even more amazing that it was two pitchers the previous year.

Well, there you have it: Miguel Cabrera is the first Triple Crown winner in 45 years. What's weird is that Granderson banged out 2 HR today but was pinch hit for (granted, a third on the day would only have tied Cabrera anyway). If he does not win the MVP (I think he will in a cakewalk), he would join a noble group, since half the Triple Crown winners did not go on to win the MVP or its equivalent in their league.

I'm kind of in awe of this: in our sabermetric age we might downplay it, but there's a reason it's so rare- and to do it at the pinnacle of competitive play, with international scouting, advanced training and analysis, and top-notch diet, health, and fitness options (even excluding PEDs). He got a ring with Florida in his rookie year, he's now got a Triple Crown win, and he may get an MVP this year. According to baseball-reference's HoF monitor, he's a lock for the HoF were he to retire after this year (his 10th), and he's just now entering his prime years: even if he starts to lose his skills around age 33 or 34, he'll likely be pushing past 500 homeruns and 500 doubles.

Scary, scary good hitter...

posted by hincandenza at 10:57 PM on October 03

On a different note, as a Padre fan I have to be somewhat pleased with how the season ended. Despite being 20 games under .500 at one point in the first half, milling through 15 or 16 different starting pitchers, and being the first team in the majors to get to 50 losses, they managed to pull themselves together to end up with fewer than 90 losses, and even pretty recently still had a realistic chance to actually get a winning season. The Giants did well enough that I don't know if the Pads could have taken the division if they played the whole season the way they did from July through September, but it would have been a pretty good race.

posted by LionIndex at 02:33 AM on October 04

As a fan, I can't believe the Texas Rangers went into dig-a-hole-to-die-in mode a week before the season ended. I am not optimistic about how they'll play against a Baltimore Orioles team that's fired up about being in the postseason after such a long run of mediocrity.

posted by rcade at 08:56 AM on October 04

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.