I will remain emotionally balanced for now. We were in first place by a good margin in June last year and I remember how that worked out.
Current standings are pretty meaningless. And I've seen enough September collapses to know that the first several months are best enjoyed without an eye toward October.
So can anyone who just saw the end of the Giants-Dodgers game clue me in on what happened, considering this:
I seem to remember a play from 2010 where Michael Young, then with the Texas Rangers, was called out because his hand brushed the third base coach's hand when he rounded the bag and went back. But they don't call it here when the coach jumps in front of the runner and bodily restrains him? WTF?
I didn't see it, but at least the right team won . Mattingly was right -- that should have been reviewable.
Didn't see it, but the umpire's explanation makes sense to me: A bump is not assistance in my opinion, so I have no issue with the ruling.
http://m.mlb.com/news/article/14314294/ The "contact" in that 2010 game was incidental, and did not assist the runner in any way, yet the unps were all over it. Last night the coach physically prevented the runner from advancing and "oops, didn't see it." I would genuinely like some clarification from the league on what the rule is and how they instruct umpires to enforce it.
Is there video? The article I read made it sound like the contact was incidental. I don't think we can say a call in a game five years ago must permanently inform how subsequent games are officiated. Why didn't Mattingly ask for a review if it was blatant but unseen? The impression I get is that the ump explain the rule interpretation and that was that.
http://m.dodgers.mlb.com/news/article/120018706/ I don't know where to find a video of the 2010 play, but take my word that there was much less contact. I would just like to know which call is considered correct, since there's no way they could both be. EDIT: here it is http://m.mlb.com/video/?content_id=11759303&c_id=mlb
Okay, here's my amateur opinion after seeing both clips. To me, an interference call hinges on whether it actually impacts the play, and that's the difference between the two incidents, not the level of contact. In the play last night, the base runner over ran the base and bumped in to the coach. I do not think that prevented him from going home, because I don't think he planned to turn the corner. You can tell by his angle of approach that he is not going to make the turn. The key here, though, is that there was no play at third, as the third baseman had been pulled toward second to try to field the ball, and the pitcher was not covering. They might have had a play if somebody had covered third, but instead, the left fielder had to throw to a location that was nowhere near the bag. So the bump, whether intentional or accidental, had no impact on the play. He wasn't going home, and there was no way to get him after the over run without a player there to exploit it. Therefore, the rule should not apply. In the 2010 play, I agree the contact was pretty minimal, but there was a play in progress at that base. Was the contact enough to make a difference? Hard to say, but it occurred, and because it occurred and there was an actual play, I think the rule applies. JMO of course, and keep in mind, I'd prefer that every call go against the Giants, so I'm not bringing any bias in to this.
Maybe it does make a difference if there's a play at the base, but then all the other team has to do is throw over there. It should become an appeal play, like a runner leaving too early on a sac fly. I remember strongly disagreeing with the 2010 call, because the contact was so obviously accidental. He slipped and fell! There was no intent to assist him back to the bag. The Giants' coach jumped in front of the runner and blocked him, pretty blatent. Maybe since there was no play it doesn't make a difference, I don't know. They need to start enforcing the rule about the coach staying in the box though.
Maybe there's some more footage that shows this, but the video I looked at seemed to instead show the Giants coach standing in the coaches box, and not getting out of the way of the train running toward him. Maybe he could have avoided it, but I didn't see him jump in front of the runner.
This, of course, is the answer. From the MLB rulebook: There was no potential play at third, and the runner very clearly was slowing down running into third base and never intended to go home, so there was no potential play there either. It's only offensive interference if it affects a defensive play.
Poor Milwaukee! 3-13 start, their season is already a complete bust. Time for baseball to consider a demotion/promotion system like English "football" does? Might the Brewers be a better fit in the Pacific Coast League? Discuss!
One thing that such a system would do would be to put pressure on teams to be competitive. Imagine if your city just spent hundreds of millions of dollars on a new stadium only to have its team demoted to AAA.
Last year, 29 of 30 teams were profitable, but I'd say only about 20 try to actually win in any given season. Any team can have a bad season, even very good teams -- just look at the Redsox and Giants over the past few years. So I don't think a single bad year should result in a demotion. But these teams that never manage to compete should be punished. Obviously profit is available regardless, so the market won't get the owners of non-performing teams to focus on baseball operations. Maybe humiliation would be a more effective lever.
Baseball needs what the NFL has, a salary cap. Or certain teams will NEVER compete. It's unfair for a team like the Yankees to BUY every talent they want because they are in the biggest market. If you want teams to be equal then they need to be on an even level. Just my opinion.
Setting aside the question of whether a salary cap really does any good, in baseball, revenue is generated almost exclusively on a local basis by and for individual teams. Structurally, baseball revenues simply aren't equal and there's no good way to make them equal; revenue sharing on a scale necessary to equalize revenue would entail all kinds of perverse incentives that would result in a dramatic overall drop in revenue. Forcing spending not to align with income by imposing a salary cap is problematic at best. The NFL, on the other hand, primarily generates revenue from national television deals signed by the league. Making access to that national television money contingent on salary floors and caps is sensible, and the floor is necessary to prevent teams from tanking and owners pocketing the money. And, of course, overall competitiveness is not really any better in the NFL than it is in MLB, mostly due to there not being anywhere near enough elite QBs to go around rather than due to revenue and spending differentials. Teams having structural revenue advantages is just part of the game in MLB, and there's nothing really wrong with that.
when the Yankees really went nuts was around 2002(?) when they formed the YES network and their local broadcasting revenues blew through the roof. Lately, other local deals are bigger and bigger and that's normalized a bit (though there are exceptions - in Toronto for instance the media giant owns the team rater than vice-versa so guess which one gets the sweetheart deal?)
The point of a salary cap in baseball, the cap would force all teams to spend the same or close to it for talent. How fair is it the Dodgers spend 277 Million on Salary and the Astros spend 70 Million? Not because the Astros wouldn't like to, because they CAN'T. What if the Dodgers weren't allowed to either? There are ways to make it so more teams can compete. Who won the World Series last year, the 3rd highest paid team. And the year before that, the 4th highest paid team. Sure money spent doesn't always equal the best talent, but the World Series winners have been in the top 10 (If not 5) for a LONG time in dollars spent. The Reds spend less then HALF (120 Million) and they will suck this year, have not won a series in 25 years, even been in one in 25 years. Sure they have made the playoffs, only to be buried by teams that have more money for talent. If it keeps up small market teams will disappear. The Reds already beg for fans to come watch, I haven't been in 3 years.
I agree it's a problem, but I think Liet's point is hard to dismiss. There are enough big market teams to prevent any vote for a more firm salary cap or revenue sharing. As for lower payroll teams, plenty have made it to the World Series, and some have even won it. The Rays, Rockies, Diamondbacks, and Marlins all come to mind. And the A's manage to put together highly competitive teams almost every year, even though they haven't quite made it to the Series. But both they and the Rays are good almost every year, despite being in the lower third for payroll. And look at Kansas City?
The last 10 years have been the Red Sox, White Sox, Phillies, Giants and Yankees and Cardinals. The Rays have NEVER won it, the Marlins did 12 years ago, The Diamondbacks did 14 years ago with the 4th highest payroll. The Rockies went in 2007 but got swept the Red Sox, the 2nd highest paid team.Yeah I admit the big teams will never let the small market teams be even, but more fans are staying home and just watching on TV, I know I am. Kansas City did it with young talent last year and their salary jumped 30 million in one season. Lets see what they do this year.
So that's six teams in 10 years, and only two of those have won it more than once. True, they are big market, but how many more teams can win in that time span?
And really, is St. Louis a big market team? Yet they are consistently one of the best teams in the National League. By my count, there are at least ten big market teams, maybe 11. Not all of them field competitive teams, so there is more to it than just money.
St Louis made a deal with the DEVIL. Money doesn't always equal talent, but there needs to be a more even way to do it. I'd love to see Pittsburgh or Kansas City WIN one, not just get there, that's the problem here in Cincinnati, the Reds have made the playoffs, only to lose as soon as they get there. It's known as the "One and done City" (Yeah the Bengals too, but that's the owner not the league). It's kinda like seeing the SAME drivers win in NASCAR week after week.
REDS Losing AGAIN to the Cubs, after being rained out yesterday. Man they suck this year. All hail Jay Bruce, the strikeout king, thank god he's on the bench today.. Batting .164..
Redsox are getting crushed. Even though they are doing reasonably well so far, they don't seem to have quite come together yet as a cohesive unit. I think they should be better than what we've seen.
