Extremely Stupid Baseball Questions

[mighty_thor 115]

 

I'm glad you posted that because I started wondering why that wouldn't "runner interference" but intentionally knocking down the ball would be.

 

So, now I know "runner interference" includes those two things, I have to ask.... what about that time when the runner shouted "HA!!!" and distracted the player from catching the ball. Was that technically runner interference too? Or are they legally allowed to do yell - even if it is bush league?

 

You can legally yell but it is considered bush league.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

I never said the pitch would count. I said that if a pitcher tried it there would be Consequences and Repercussions from trying it.

 

I don't understand why a the opposing pitcher would bean someone else because his pitcher threw a ball early. They might laugh at the dumbass, but why risk getting thrown out of a game because the other guy is an idiot. You only throw at a guy if you are trying to protect your own players.

 

That was my point.

[kilroy69 1,271]

You can legally yell but it is considered bush league.

And would get you a fastball in the numbers when you got up to bat again.

[kilroy69 1,271]

I don't understand why a the opposing pitcher would bean someone else because his pitcher threw a ball early. They might laugh at the dumbass, but why risk getting thrown out of a game because the other guy is an idiot. You only throw at a guy if you are trying to protect your own players.

 

That was my point.

Because there are things that can't be done. And there are ways to make it look as though you lost controll of the ball. And the ump may look the other way if a pitcher hit a batter because of the opposing pitcher being stupid.

 

The Beanball is the oldest weapon in the book for baseball. And just because you hit someone on purpose does not mean you are going to get thrown out. The ump always gives a warning to both benches.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Because there are things that can't be done. And there are ways to make it look as though you lost controll of the ball. And the ump may look the other way if a pitcher hit a batter because of the opposing pitcher being stupid.

 

The Beanball is the oldest weapon in the book for baseball. And just because you hit someone on purpose does not mean you are going to get thrown out. The ump always gives a warning to both benches.

 

Do you think that every game has 20 bean balls?

[GobbleDog 1,014]

Alright, we've established that a runner going to 2nd base can cause TWO outs by interfering with the 2nd baseman.

 

Obviously the next question is - what if the runner is going to 3rd (with a runner heading to 2nd and a runner/batter heading to 1st)... and the runner going to 3rd interferes with the 3rd baseman. Is the penalty for "runner interference" in that scenario THREE outs?

 

[kilroy69 1,271]

Do you think that every game has 20 bean balls?

What kind of stupid focking question is that? Sometimes people get hit on accident. Other times its on purpose. If its on purpose everyone knows it and the benches get warned.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Alright, we've established that a runner going to 2nd base can cause TWO outs by interfering with the 2nd baseman.

 

Obviously the next question is - what if the runner is going to 3rd (with a runner heading to 2nd and a runner/batter heading to 1st)... and the runner going to 3rd interferes with the 3rd baseman. Is the penalty for "runner interference" in that scenario THREE outs?

 

 

No. It depends upon what happens, but if the 3rd baseman touches third and strikes the runner as he is throwing to 2nd, then it is likely that there would be 2 outs called. The runner going to third and the runner going to 2nd as those were the people the play was being made on.

 

In general if interference called, then the guy interfering is out, the play is dead and the runners cannot advance. Look it up in the rules and you will see similar scenarios when a batted ball hits a runner.

[GobbleDog 1,014]

No. It depends upon what happens, but if the 3rd baseman touches third and strikes the runner as he is throwing to 2nd, then it is likely that there would be 2 outs called. The runner going to third and the runner going to 2nd as those were the people the play was being made on.

 

Well wait.... assuming there's no outs yet, the team could potentially have had a triple-play if the runner hadn't interfered!?!?!? Why wouldn't that be THREE outs?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

Well wait.... assuming there's no outs yet, the team could potentially have had a triple-play if the runner hadn't interfered!?!?!? Why wouldn't that be THREE outs?

 

In general, you cannot assume that a triple play would be made in that situation. Just like you cannot assume that the throw (if it did not hit the runner) would be fielded cleanly. However, the umpire could rule that it would have been a double play and (theoretically) could rule a triple play. However, that would not seem to be reasonable given the likelihood.

 

Sort of like when a batted ball is grabbed by a fan. The ump could rule it a 3-base situation rather than a ground rule double. It is generally not done, but it could be.

[GobbleDog 1,014]

In general, you cannot assume that a triple play would be made in that situation. Just like you cannot assume that the throw (if it did not hit the runner) would be fielded cleanly. However, the umpire could rule that it would have been a double play and (theoretically) could rule a triple play. However, that would not seem to be reasonable given the likelihood.

 

Sort of like when a batted ball is grabbed by a fan. The ump could rule it a 3-base situation rather than a ground rule double. It is generally not done, but it could be.

 

Ah-ha! So technically the ump could penaltize the team THREE outs. Interesting...

[kilroy69 1,271]

Well wait.... assuming there's no outs yet, the team could potentially have had a triple-play if the runner hadn't interfered!?!?!? Why wouldn't that be THREE outs?

There is NEVER an assumption of a triple play. Hell there is not even an assumption of a double play. That is why if the double play is not completed there is not an error charged unless the ball is airmailed or the 1st baseman just wiffs on it. The situation you spoke of earlier where the runner interfered with a dp already in progress is the exception to that because it would have been turned had he slid.

 

Ie. The shortstop bobbles the ball but gets it to 2nd in time for the out. However the exchange takes too long for the 2nd basemen to throw out the runner going to first. No double play but also no error even though it would have been a dp had the shortstop handled the ball correct.

 

 

Any arguements Patriotsfatboy1?

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

There is NEVER an assumption of a triple play. Hell there is not even an assumption of a double play. That is why if the double play is not completed there is not an error charged unless the ball is airmailed or the 1st baseman just wiffs on it. The situation you spoke of earlier where the runner interfered with a dp already in progress is the exception to that because it would have been turned had he slid.

 

Ie. The shortstop bobbles the ball but gets it to 2nd in time for the out. However the exchange takes too long for the 2nd basemen to throw out the runner going to first. No double play but also no error even though it would have been a dp had the shortstop handled the ball correct.

Any arguements Patriotsfatboy1?

 

No argument from me on that. I cannot foresee any situation where the umpire would assume a triple play. I guess if the batter had a heart-attack getting out of the box and was crumpled in a pile on the ground and the guy running to 2nd had a stroke.

[BMoney 0]

heres 1 for the stupid file...

 

coaches today worry SO much about the pitch count hes up to 100...

 

yet, the guys warm up in the pen and snap it hard..and the warm up between innings...why dont they ever count THOSE pitches?...

[GobbleDog 1,014]

There is NEVER an assumption of a triple play. Hell there is not even an assumption of a double play. ........................... The situation you spoke of earlier where the runner interfered with a dp already in progress is the exception to that because it would have been turned had he slid.

 

vs

 

the runner interfered with a tp already in progress...

 

What's the difference? One situation equals two outs, the other situation should equal three outs.

 

 

[kilroy69 1,271]

heres 1 for the stupid file...

 

coaches today worry SO much about the pitch count hes up to 100...

 

yet, the guys warm up in the pen and snap it hard..and the warm up between innings...why dont they ever count THOSE pitches?...

The pitch count is here to stay. With the amount of money that teams invest into a player they simply can't afford to leave kids in for too many pitches.

They don't count the pitches in the pen because they are not really throwing like they would in the game. They are only trying to stretch their arms out.

 

Fredi Gonzalez let Ricky Nolasco, a 25-year-old who battled elbow woes last year, throw 132 pitches -- the most by any pitcher in either league since 2006. This is a recipe for disaster. Most pitchers are on a pitch count below 100.

 

It also has a lot to do with the fundamental change in how early in games bullpens are used.

[GobbleDog 1,014]

They don't count the pitches in the pen because they are not really throwing like they would in the game.

 

They sure look like they're throwing pretty fast. In the game, they throw 90+ mph. How fast would ya guess they're throwing it in while in the bull pen?

[Thornton Melon 651]

Can a fielder be credited with an unassisted triple play without ever touching the ball? If so, how?

[kilroy69 1,271]

They sure look like they're throwing pretty fast. In the game, they throw 90+ mph. How fast would ya guess they're throwing it in while in the bull pen?

Not 90+. Like I said they are not really trying to crank it up. All they are trying to do is warm their arm up. Its like a faster game of long toss.

[kilroy69 1,271]

vs

 

the runner interfered with a tp already in progress...

 

What's the difference? One situation equals two outs, the other situation should equal three outs.

Explain to me how this would happen?

 

The only way I could see it happen is if it were the same situation as the DP. A ball hit to 2nd in the air is caught, the base is tagged and the runner on 2nd somehow interferes with the 2nd baseman. Or possibly the ball is hit to 3rd on the ground and the 3rd baseman tags the base, turns the throw to 2nd and the runner on his way to 2nd does something to interfere with the ball somehow. Either way the interferance would almost have to come as its turned from 2nd.

[Patriotsfatboy1 1,433]

vs

 

the runner interfered with a tp already in progress...

 

What's the difference? One situation equals two outs, the other situation should equal three outs.

 

1. The triple play that you are talking about is not going to be a given in a scenario like that. The only real play that would be affected would be the one that the runner touched the ball on. The one that you think they might make afterwards is speculation and not even remotely possible. Big difference between a double play that happens all the time and the triple play which happens almost never.

 

2. What is this crap discussion on pitch counts? There is a lot of evidence of pitchers throwing a certain number of pitches and a higher incidence of injury. Think of it like having a RB carry it 400 times a season. They DO count the warmup pitches into their thinking. However, a starting pitcher throws 15 warmup pitches between innings, so it is not like a guy in the bullpen. They definitely keep track of the times a guy gets up in the bullpen to warm up and it is factored into everything that they do. With the types of odd pitches that put strain on arms (splitters, curves, sliders, etc.), they have to be more careful than they used to with arms that are making $100M.

[KingofBeer 0]

Here's another question from a half-assed baseball fan

 

Who gets credited for a run if a pitcher leaves the game with a runner on base and the pitcher entering the game lets that run in? Do they split the run? It doesn't seem fair to give it solely to just one of them.

[Big Blue 06 196]

Here's another question from a half-assed baseball fan

 

Who gets credited for a run if a pitcher leaves the game with a runner on base and the pitcher entering the game lets that run in? Do they split the run? It doesn't seem fair to give it solely to just one of them.

 

The pitcher that lets the guy get on base is responsible for that run.

[KingofBeer 0]

The pitcher that lets the guy get on base is responsible for that run.

 

Thanks. Doesn't it seem more fair if they split the run?

[Big Blue 06 196]

Thanks. Doesn't it seem more fair if they split the run?

 

Maybe, but since when is baseball fair?

[kilroy69 1,271]

Thanks. Doesn't it seem more fair if they split the run?

Not at all. The runner was allowed on base because of the departed pitcher. Allthough the new pitcher does not want to give up a run he can't be held responsible for a runner that someone else put on base.

[kilroy69 1,271]

1. The triple play that you are talking about is not going to be a given in a scenario like that. The only real play that would be affected would be the one that the runner touched the ball on. The one that you think they might make afterwards is speculation and not even remotely possible. Big difference between a double play that happens all the time and the triple play which happens almost never.

It goes back to fact both the DP and TP can't be assumed.

[GobbleDog 1,014]

Explain to me how this would happen?

 

... Or possibly the ball is hit to 3rd on the ground and the 3rd baseman tags the base, turns the throw to 2nd and...

 

...THE RUNNER TO 3RD BASE INTERFERES WITH THE 3RD BASEMAN TRYING TO THROW TO 2ND BASE, WHO'S GOING TO THROW TO FIRST BASE, FOR THE TRIPLE PLAY!?!?!?

 

What am I missing? Why is that not possible? Tag 3rd base = out #1. Throw to 2nd base and tag = out #2. Throw to 1st base and tag = out #3.

 

If the runner interferes with the 3rd baseman, he's essentially stopped a potential triple-play.

 

 

Is it impossible to do all those things before the batter reaches 1st base? Is that what I'm missing?

[pimptastic69 0]

...THE RUNNER TO 3RD BASE INTERFERES WITH THE 3RD BASEMAN TRYING TO THROW TO 2ND BASE, WHO'S GOING TO THROW TO FIRST BASE, FOR THE TRIPLE PLAY!?!?!?

 

What am I missing? Why is that not possible? Tag 3rd base = out #1. Throw to 2nd base and tag = out #2. Throw to 1st base and tag = out #3.

 

If the runner interferes with the 3rd baseman, he's essentially stopped a potential triple-play.

 

 

Is it impossible to do all those things before the batter reaches 1st base? Is that what I'm missing?

 

 

Because it would never freakin' happen, that's why.

 

Time is of the essence in regards to a 5-4-3 triple play. There simply is no time for a runner to interfere with the 3rd basemen at the start of a triple play. Even if the runner on 2nd base is stealing, there still would be no time for that runner to interfere with the 3rd basemen.

[kilroy69 1,271]

...THE RUNNER TO 3RD BASE INTERFERES WITH THE 3RD BASEMAN TRYING TO THROW TO 2ND BASE, WHO'S GOING TO THROW TO FIRST BASE, FOR THE TRIPLE PLAY!?!?!?

 

What am I missing? Why is that not possible? Tag 3rd base = out #1. Throw to 2nd base and tag = out #2. Throw to 1st base and tag = out #3.

 

If the runner interferes with the 3rd baseman, he's essentially stopped a potential triple-play.

 

 

Is it impossible to do all those things before the batter reaches 1st base? Is that what I'm missing?

The runner going to 3rd and the runner going to 2nd would be out because of the runners interferance. The same thing as the DP we were speaking of earlier. But as I have said and patfanboy has tried to impress upon you it that the TP will NEVER be assumed. Unless its obvious interferance the DP will not be assumed either.

 

I think your problem is that you are assuming the DP and the TP. There have been a total of 674 triple plays in 132 years. In contrast there have been almost 4,000 more double plays in that time frame.

[GobbleDog 1,014]

Even if the runner on 2nd base is stealing, there still would be no time for that runner to interfere with the 3rd basemen.

 

Hypothetically, if the runner SOMEHOW did get there in time to interfere with the 3rd baseman (stealing AND ran faster than lightning), then would it be an automatic 3 outs?

 

What if he runs upright at the 3rd baseman and literally knocks the ball down with his hands? He'd save a potential triple-play, and the only penalty according to yall is just 2 automatic outs instead of 3. Which makes no sense. The penalty should be 3 automatic outs for preventing the triple-play.

[GobbleDog 1,014]

The runner going to 3rd and the runner going to 2nd would be out because of the runners interferance. The same thing as the DP we were speaking of earlier. But as I have said and patfanboy has tried to impress upon you it that the TP will NEVER be assumed. Unless its obvious interferance the DP will not be assumed either.

 

I think your problem is that you are assuming the DP and the TP. There have been a total of 674 triple plays in 132 years. In contrast there have been almost 4,000 more double plays in that time frame.

 

If the runner appears to have prevented a triple-play, why wouldn't the penalty be 3 automatic outs? You're saying they'd only be charged with 2 outs, simply because triple-plays are so rare - REGARDLESS if the player really did prevent a triple-play.

[kilroy69 1,271]

Hypothetically, if the runner SOMEHOW did get there in time to interfere with the 3rd baseman (stealing AND ran faster than lightning), then would it be an automatic 3 outs?

 

What if he runs upright at the 3rd baseman and literally knocks the ball down with his hands? He'd save a potential triple-play, and the only penalty according to yall is just 2 automatic outs instead of 3. Which makes no sense. The penalty should be 3 automatic outs for preventing the triple-play.

Still just 2 outs because of the reasons I mentioned.

[GobbleDog 1,014]

BTW - I really do appreciate all the responses. I'm not fishing or trying to argue for the sake of it. Just want to understand the rules and the why's/whynot's.

 

 

[GobbleDog 1,014]

Still just 2 outs because of the reasons I mentioned.

 

OK..... it's Game 7 of the World Series, bottom of the 9th, and the home team is down by 1 run with no outs, a man on first, and a man on second, and the ball is hit to the third baseman with the potential for a triple-play, your saying the runner going to 3rd should try to knock the ball down by any means necessary (slapping at it or whatever) because the only penalty would be 2 outs?

 

That's insane.

[kilroy69 1,271]

BTW - I really do appreciate all the responses. I'm not fishing or trying to argue for the sake of it. Just want to understand the rules and the why's/whynot's.

No problem. Baseball is a sport that takes a bit to understand. A lot of rules and "what if" situations. I come from a baseball family. I have mentioned before that My grandfather played ball, my dad played ball (and even had a try out with the tigers) and my 3 brothers and I played. When we get together the first thing we speak of is the tigers.

[kilroy69 1,271]

OK..... it's Game 7 of the World Series, bottom of the 9th, and the home team is down by 1 run with no outs, a man on first, and a man on second, and the ball is hit to the third baseman with the potential for a triple-play, your saying the runner going to 3rd should try to knock the ball down by any means necessary (slapping at it or whatever) because the only penalty would be 2 outs?

 

That's insane.

I am saying that a 6-4-3 double play is hard to do. Only 52 have been completed EVER and the ump would not assume that it would be completed even in the best of circumstances.

[kilroy69 1,271]

Intresting note. Of the 674 TP's 13 were unassisted.

 

And the rarest of all is the unassisted TP by an outfielder. Its only happened 1 time EVER.

[pimptastic69 0]

OK..... it's Game 7 of the World Series, bottom of the 9th, and the home team is down by 1 run with no outs, a man on first, and a man on second, and the ball is hit to the third baseman with the potential for a triple-play, your saying the runner going to 3rd should try to knock the ball down by any means necessary (slapping at it or whatever) because the only penalty would be 2 outs?

 

That's insane.

 

No, he should not do that. The likliehood of a triple play is so minute, that it's not worth risking the 2 sure outs you'd get by interfering with the throw. But on the other hand, if you were so gung-ho about winning the WS that you'd be willing to risk your life by trying to headbutt a 90 mph fastball on it's way to second base...I can't imagine anyone would hold it against you. That would be a well deserved "team victory".

[GobbleDog 1,014]

I am saying that a 6-4-3 double play is hard to do. Only 52 have been completed EVER and the ump would not assume that it would be completed even in the best of circumstances.

 

 

6-4-3 ..... that's obviously some kind of baseball code for the scenario I gave, but only guru's understand it.

 

 

 

 

In any case, answer the question dabit! In my scenario, the runner to 2nd base would actually help his team if he LITERALLY knocked the 3rd baseman's throw down with his hand because the team would only be penalized for 2 outs instead of 3!?!?!

 

Pick one:

 

YES or NO