Master Index of Archived Threads


So about that pickoff error last night ...

Frayed Knot Jul 07 2015 06:46 AM

The set-up for those not watching or forget the details: 2-out, top-3rd, Granderson on 1st base following a walk. With a 2-2 count on Tejada, 1B Brandon Belt decides to play behind Granderson (thought it was a full count???). Pitcher Heston tries to pick Grandy off without realizing where Belt is -- the throw was right at the base and had Grandy diving back in head-first but Belt was at least 10 feet away so the ball skitters into foul territory, Curtis gets up and takes 2nd on the error. Now here's the thing (briefly mentioned by Gary but not really pursued): - it's illegal for a pitcher to throw to an unoccupied base from the mound, specifically it's a balk. I've even seen a balk called for "deceiving the runner" when a 1B is only slightly off the base as the pitcher turns and throws because the 1B is faking a bunt-charge or a drop-back. It's the same 'unoccupied base' logic based on the 1B being off the base even as the pitcher is just starting to turn and throw. - it would have (or at least SHOULD have) also have been a balk had Heston not thrown to 1st once stepping that way (i.e.. had he held the ball upon realizing that Belt was out to lunch) But no balk was called (at least none that I saw) and if the throw had bounced off the wall slightly differently there could easily have been a play on Grandy at 2nd. My question is: Is this a case where Granderson is granted 2nd base free and clear but had to right to try and take more if he could get it? -- IOW, an ump could indicate the balk but not stop the play (like a fielder obstruction call) and then rule Granderson safe even if the Giants retrieved and threw to 2nd in time? Same kind of deal had he not got up and run at all: because he didn't see the throw go wild, because he didn't think he could make it, because he got hurt on the dive back, etc. It should be his base without risk as far as I can tell. I assume Granderson IS at his own risk past 2nd and therefore could be called out if tagged trying for 3rd - his 'immunity', so to speak, runs out once past 2B. Or is there something else I'm missing here?

Edgy MD Jul 07 2015 07:12 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

[list]8.05 (d): If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when ... [t]he pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play;[/list:u] I understand "unoccupied base" in that context to mean a base not currently occupied by a runner. Not a base not covered by a fielder. Else, any time you throw to second, you are throwing to an unoccupied base, because those plays are generally one where the fielder sweeps in while the ball is coming.

Ceetar Jul 07 2015 07:15 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

I think you're right that if it was technically a balk and he should've gotten second, it's not a 'time out' play that necessitates a stoppage. So if Granderson kept on running, he could've been tagged. But I think Edgy's right about what unoccupied means. This is why the old fake to third, throw to first play used to be legal only when a runner was on third. Otherwise you would've been able to do it just by having the third baseman cover. (and you could still do it now, by faking to second.) Interesting to see if the Mets would've challenged that (I'm 99.9% sure you can't challenge that situation, though perhaps 'tag play' allows you to challenge that it was an unoccupied base?) though It's certainly something you can come out and yell at the umpires about anyway. Rule 5.06(b)(3)(B) Comment (Rule 7.04(b) Comment): A runner forced to advance without liability to be put out may advance past the base to which he is entitled only at his peril. If such a runner, forced to advance, is put out for the third out before a preceding runner, also forced to advance, touches home plate, the run shall score. Play. Two out, bases full, batter walks but runner from second is overzealous and runs past third base toward home and is tagged out on a throw by the catcher. Even though two are out, the run would score on the theory that the run was forced home by the base on balls and that all the runners needed to do was proceed and touch the next base.

Gwreck Jul 07 2015 07:20 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

Ball is dead upon calling of a balk. Rule 5.06 (c)(3). IF a balk had been called, Granderson gets second base free and clear; no opportunity to advance additional bases. I agree with Edgy's interpretation that the absence of a fielder does not mean that the base was unoccupied.

Edgy MD Jul 07 2015 07:32 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

The Giants this past weekend tried to pick off Bryce Harper by having the second baseman (Panick) hold his position while the shortstop (Crawford) chatted up Harper with beard talk, while the pitcher turned and threw to the "unoccupied" base as the center fielder sprinted in to take the throw. I can't see why there would be a rule about a pitcher throwing to a base that has no fielder. I mean, isn't the general result of such a play punishment enough, without making a rule about it? You might as well make a rule that states the outfielder is not allowed to field a ball, turn, and punt it over the wall into the outfield bleachers.

Frayed Knot Jul 07 2015 07:32 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

[list]8.05 (d): If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when ... [t]he pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play;[/list:u] I understand "unoccupied base" in that context to mean a base not currently occupied by a runner. Not a base not covered by a fielder. Else, any time you throw to second, you are throwing to an unoccupied base, because those plays are generally one where the fielder sweeps in while the ball is coming. Pickoffs to 2nd though are always done after breaking contact with the rubber. Now I suppose you could argue that, with a right-hander, a pickoff to 1st only comes after breaking contact also but I always understood the balk rule to treat 1st base somewhat differently than either 2nd or 3rd to the point where any step by the pitcher towards 1st required a throw to 1st just as any movement towards the plate obligates him to go through with the pitch*. Maybe I'm wrong there which, if so, would negate the idea that it would be a balk even had Heston held onto the ball once realizing where Belt was (he should never be on the mound without knowing where his Belt is) but i know I've seen balks called because the 1st baseman was off the bag and in situations where he was a lot closer to it than was Belt. And it was something that Gary picked up on immediately also. * ye olde fake-to-3rd then fake(or throw)-to-1st play was legal (until recently) specifically because the step to 3rd did NOT require the pitcher to throw there and thus allowed him freelance his next move at will. By contrast a pitcher never could fake to 1st first and then throw to 3rd

Ceetar Jul 07 2015 07:40 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

he can step and not throw but if he steps towards first he has to throw as I understand this. Rule 8.05(c) Comment: Requires the pitcher, while touching his plate, to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base. If a pitcher turns or spins off of his free foot without actually stepping or if he turns his body and throws before stepping, it is a balk. A pitcher is to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base but does not require him to throw (except to first base only) because he steps. It is possible, with runners on first and third, for the pitcher to step toward third and not throw, merely to bluff the runner back to third; then seeing the runner on first start for second, turn and step toward and throw to first base. This is legal. However, if, with runners on first and third, the pitcher, while in contact with the rubber, steps toward third and then immediately and in practically the same motion ?wheels? and throws to first base, it is obviously an attempt to deceive the runner at first base, and in such a move it is practically impossible to step directly toward first base before the throw to first base, and such a move shall be called a balk. Of course, if the pitcher steps off the rubber and then makes such a move, it is not a balk.

Frayed Knot Jul 07 2015 07:47 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

A pitcher is to step directly toward a base before throwing to that base but does not require him to throw (except to first base only) because he steps. So that implies that it WOULD have been a balk had Heston NOT thrown it after stepping that way and realizing where Belt was.

Gwreck Jul 07 2015 07:51 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

Frayed Knot wrote: So that implies that it WOULD have been a balk had Heston NOT thrown it after stepping that way and realizing where Belt was. Yes, exactly. He would have been better off holding the ball and taking the balk rather than risking the ball going into the stands.

Ceetar Jul 07 2015 07:59 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

Gwreck wrote: Frayed Knot wrote: So that implies that it WOULD have been a balk had Heston NOT thrown it after stepping that way and realizing where Belt was. Yes, exactly. He would have been better off holding the ball and taking the balk rather than risking the ball going into the stands. Well, he could've thrown a softer toss more towards Belt and I doubt they would've called a balk because that's sorta to first base, especially if Belt took a step towards it while fielding. What do the rules say about throwing to a fielder? Like, if you step towards SS and throw it to him?

Frayed Knot Jul 07 2015 07:59 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

So then the remaining questions: - was the throw itself a balk based on there being no fielder at the bag giving Granderson a free pass to 2nd base? - if so did the umps miss it, or is it something they only would have called if/when Grandy was either tagged out at 2nd or failed to even try to advance?

Centerfield Jul 07 2015 08:01 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

[list]8.05 (d): If there is a runner, or runners, it is a balk when ... [t]he pitcher, while touching his plate, throws, or feints a throw to an unoccupied base, except for the purpose of making a play;[/list:u] I understand "unoccupied base" in that context to mean a base not currently occupied by a runner. Not a base not covered by a fielder. Else, any time you throw to second, you are throwing to an unoccupied base, because those plays are generally one where the fielder sweeps in while the ball is coming. That is how I understood it too. Otherwise Bobby Valentine's Dancing Olerud Strategy would have been a balk every time, no?

Gwreck Jul 07 2015 08:08 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

Frayed Knot wrote: was the throw itself a balk based on there being no fielder at the bag giving Granderson a free pass to 2nd base? No. if so did the umps miss it, or is it something they only would have called if/when Grandy was either tagged out at 2nd or failed to even try to advance? If Granderson was tagged out at second base or failed to advance, too bad for the Mets. Balks (called properly or not) are not reviewable plays.

Frayed Knot Jul 07 2015 08:15 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

Gwreck wrote: Balks (called properly or not) are not reviewable plays. Not reviewable but it would be a rules interpretation which is certainly arguable and maybe even protest-able. Gary and I both had the immediate conclusion that it was a balk. That the result was the same as a balk renders it moot (or 'mute' as some used to say at the MoFo) but I'm curious as the call if the bounce and outcome were different.

Gwreck Jul 07 2015 08:51 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

Well, I think I answered that question. It was not a balk; the ball was live; if Granderson advanced he was in jeopardy of being tagged out; if he was tagged out, Terry might have argued; and if the umpires followed the rules, they would not have reviewed the call of whether the throw to first was a balk or not. Same thing would happen in the alternate scenario if the ball went into the stands and the umpires awarded Granderson third. Bochy would not be able to argue that it was instead a balk and the ball was dead.

John Cougar Lunchbucket Jul 07 2015 09:19 AM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

Edgy MD Jul 07 2015 03:59 PM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

Frayed Knot wrote: Belt was at least 10 feet away so the ball skitters into foul territory Indeed, he was closer to 30 than 10.

Zvon Jul 07 2015 05:07 PM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

Sorry, when I popped in earlier I didn't see this thread.

Ceetar Jul 07 2015 06:26 PM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

Zvon wrote: Sorry, when I popped in earlier I didn't see this thread. I hadn't seen it. It's all irrelevant here because he stepped off the rubber.

Rockin' Doc Jul 07 2015 08:54 PM Re: So about that pickoff error last night ...

I am pretty sure that Edgy's interpretation of the term "unoccupied base" is correct. I believe the the term refers to the base runner, not the fielder. First base was occupied by Granderson. Second base was unoccupied at the time as no runner was there at the time. So it would have been a balk had the pitcher thrown to second for some inexplicable reason.