PDA

View Full Version : Question for ya


asboog
10-13-2005, 11:22 PM
With all this talk about the "contraversal" call on the drop third strike, I was wondering how that rule came into baseball at all. Is it just to give the player that extra chance at redeeming himself after striking out or was there more to it then that? Just throwing this out there to see if there is more to it.

oeo
10-13-2005, 11:36 PM
Don't quote me on this...but this is the same on all outs, is it not? Say there is a ground ball and the first baseman does not catch the ball; then he's safe. You have to catch the ball for an out. That's just what makes since to me though.

asboog
10-13-2005, 11:55 PM
I see what you are saying but drop third strike only applies if there is no runner on first. (i believe)

elrod
10-14-2005, 12:38 AM
It's a truly ancient rule, going back to the earliest baseball rulebooks around 1845. Seriously. For the life of me, I have never understood the logic of it. Like the extra point in football (before the 2-point conversion), it's a ridiculous quasi-formality that doesn't seem to serve any operational purpose in the game.

Kuzman
10-14-2005, 07:19 AM
It's a truly ancient rule, going back to the earliest baseball rulebooks around 1845. Seriously. For the life of me, I have never understood the logic of it. Like the extra point in football (before the 2-point conversion), it's a ridiculous quasi-formality that doesn't seem to serve any operational purpose in the game.

Every now and then someone will miss the extra point and that will come back to haunt them. Wasn't it the Saints a couple years ago? The rule has always boggled my mind though as to why but hey let it stand. Josh Paul wonders why the Sox kept sending him down to the minors until he got fed up. :tongue:

But back to my point, is I wouldn't say it doesnt serve a purpose becuase it helped give the sox a win. Its basically like the missed extra point in football, ya hope that runner doesnt come back and shoot you in the foot.

Also, didn't Freddy strike out 4 or almost strike out 4 in an inning when he played for Seattle?

Deuce
10-14-2005, 07:49 AM
I see what you are saying but drop third strike only applies if there is no runner on first. (i believe)

Yep, its treated like a force out. There has to be a play available for play to continue. If first is occupied, the runner cannot advance and is ruled out even if the ball hits the ground.

Deuce

The_Floridian
10-14-2005, 08:02 AM
With all this talk about the "contraversal" call on the drop third strike, I was wondering how that rule came into baseball at all. Is it just to give the player that extra chance at redeeming himself after striking out or was there more to it then that? Just throwing this out there to see if there is more to it.

This rule goes back to the original creators of baseball, the New York Knickerbocker Baseball Club, who used to play their games in Hoboken, New Jersey, in a place called the Elysian Fields. When I say creators, I mean they were the first ones to draw up rules for the game. This was in the mid-1840's.

A lot of those rules have changed over the years (you don't throw the ball AT someone to get them out, nine innings instead of first to 21 runs, etc.), but that rule has stuck. The batter having taken three strikes, and the third one being caught, the batter is out.

The most famous incident of this rule coming in to play was in Game 4 of the 1941 World Series between the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Yankees. The Yankees led the series 2-1 and the dodgers were about to get it even.

The Dodgers were leading the game 4-3. Hugh Casey was on the mound. The bases were empty, there were two out, and Casey had two strikes on Yankee outfielder Tommy Henrich. Casey threw a curve and Henrich swung and missed. But Mickey Owen, the Brooklyn catcher, let the ball get away from him, and Henrich ran down to first. What should have been the last out of the game was eventually parlayed into four Yankee runs. The Yanks won 7-4, then took the series the next day.

Cheers. :gulp:

Ol' No. 2
10-14-2005, 08:54 AM
The reasoning behind this, as was pointed out by PHG in another thread, is this: If the rule were not in place, there would be no reason to keep the catcher behind home plate after two strikes. A smart manager would position him somewhere else on the field, leaving the umpire to absorb the punishment. In fact, I believe I read somewhere that this actually was done in the very early days, and the rule was put into place subsequently.

oharewx
10-14-2005, 08:58 AM
i've always wondered why a foul tip caught by the catcher is not an out.

Iwritecode
10-14-2005, 10:17 AM
Also, didn't Freddy strike out 4 or almost strike out 4 in an inning when he played for Seattle?

Kelly Wunsch struck out 5 batters in one inning while in the minors.

bluestar
10-14-2005, 10:40 AM
i've always wondered why a foul tip caught by the catcher is not an out.

It is if it is caught on the third strike, right?

I have also often wondered why a foul tip caught by the catcher at any point is not considered an out.

TDog
10-14-2005, 10:49 AM
i've always wondered why a foul tip caught by the catcher is not an out.

A caught foul tip, a ball that glances the bat and goes directly into the catcher's glove, has always been treated the same as a swinging strike as far as I can tell. In fact, if it bounces off the catcher's gear and into the glove, it is a foul ball. If a foul tip is trapped on a third strike, the at bat continues. A caught foul tip also applies if a runner is trying to steal, no matter the count. A batter tips it, it's caught and the runner advances at his own risk. Otherwise, a runner running on a foul tip could be doubled up easily.

The batter doesn't really hit the ball on a tip. As close as I can figure, as baseball was evolving from other games where there was no foul territory, the distinction between hitting the ball and tipping the ball were already there. Or perhaps it was put there to distinguish it from other games.

itsnotrequired
10-14-2005, 10:53 AM
Also, didn't Freddy strike out 4 or almost strike out 4 in an inning when he played for Seattle?

Freddy has not struck out four in one inning, He must have only come close.

Last Six pitcher to pull off the feat was Wilson Alverez back in 1997. In fact, he is the only Sox pitcher to ever do it.

daveeym
10-14-2005, 11:09 AM
Freddy has not struck out four in one inning, He must have only come close.

Last Six pitcher to pull off the feat was Wilson Alverez back in 1997. In fact, he is the only Sox pitcher to ever do it. He said when Freddy played for Seattle.

itsnotrequired
10-14-2005, 11:35 AM
He said when Freddy played for Seattle.

Freddy didn't do it when he played for Seattle either. He has NEVER done it.

Huisj
10-14-2005, 03:37 PM
I've always thought of it this way: if an out is recorded, someone has to be credited with a putout. Normally, the catcher catches strike 3 and gets credit for the putout, so it makes sense that if he doesn't catch the ball, he doesn't get a putout and thus must get the batter out some other way by throwing to first or tagging him.

Where that reasoning seems to break down is on the scoop-out-of-the-dirt plays like the other night. If a first baseman catches a short-hop throw on a ground ball, the batter is out. However, if a catcher scoops a pitch in the dirt cleanly, why isn't that considered a putout?

goofymsfan
10-14-2005, 03:47 PM
Freddy didn't do it when he played for Seattle either. He has NEVER done it.

Where would one go to find out something like this?

Huisj
10-14-2005, 03:50 PM
Ok a few more thoughts popped into my head in the last few minutes. I'm trying to figure out why the action of the ball hitting the dirt automatically makes it impossible for the catcher to record a putout on the pitch. This rule seems more along the lines of the rule for a fielder catching a flyball or a line-drive before it hits the ground in order to record an out, and if they don't catch it, they must throw the batter out at first.

So is it simply that a pitch in is considered to be put "in play" by the batter when it is swung at for strike three? (Thus, if the catcher catches the strike on the fly, it's an out, and if he doesn't, it's essentially like fielding a ground ball).

However, that idea brings up more questions that seem inconsistent with that logic. For example, if that were the reason behind the ruling, why is it only on strike three? And why doesn't it apply with a runner on first? It would imply that if a runner on first tried to steal, and the batter struck out, that stealing runner could be doubled off on first because of the putout made by the catcher. Then again, I guess that rule (about this not applying with a runner on first) could have been created similar to the infield fly rule--it's there to protect the baserunners against impossible-to-judge situations like that.

I need to stop this now, I'm just confusing myself more and more as I type.

SOXintheBURGH
10-14-2005, 03:55 PM
This rule goes back to the original creators of baseball, the New York Knickerbocker Baseball Club, who used to play their games in Hoboken, New Jersey, in a place called the Elysian Fields. When I say creators, I mean they were the first ones to draw up rules for the game. This was in the mid-1840's.

A lot of those rules have changed over the years (you don't throw the ball AT someone to get them out, nine innings instead of first to 21 runs, etc.), but that rule has stuck. The batter having taken three strikes, and the third one being caught, the batter is out.

The most famous incident of this rule coming in to play was in Game 4 of the 1941 World Series between the Brooklyn Dodgers and the New York Yankees. The Yankees led the series 2-1 and the dodgers were about to get it even.

The Dodgers were leading the game 4-3. Hugh Casey was on the mound. The bases were empty, there were two out, and Casey had two strikes on Yankee outfielder Tommy Henrich. Casey threw a curve and Henrich swung and missed. But Mickey Owen, the Brooklyn catcher, let the ball get away from him, and Henrich ran down to first. What should have been the last out of the game was eventually parlayed into four Yankee runs. The Yanks won 7-4, then took the series the next day.

Cheers. :gulp:

Alexander Cartwright was the first man to put together a game of 9 on 9 ball, 3 outs per side for nine innings; and putting a fielder between second and third and calling him a short stop- the first game played with said rules was played in Hoboken, NJ at Elysian Fields like you said.

Iwritecode
10-14-2005, 04:05 PM
Where that reasoning seems to break down is on the scoop-out-of-the-dirt plays like the other night. If a first baseman catches a short-hop throw on a ground ball, the batter is out. However, if a catcher scoops a pitch in the dirt cleanly, why isn't that considered a putout?

The firstbaseman is touching first base when he makes his scoop...

goofymsfan
10-14-2005, 04:05 PM
However, that idea brings up more questions that seem inconsistent with that logic. For example, if that were the reason behind the ruling, why is it only on strike three? And why doesn't it apply with a runner on first?

Actually, I just found out today by reading the rules that the batter can try to advance if there is a runner on first with two outs....even more confusing.

6.09
The batter becomes a runner when_ (a) He hits a fair ball; (b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out; When a batter becomes a base runner on a third strike not caught by the catcher and starts for the dugout, or his position, and then realizes his situation and attempts then to reach first base, he is not out unless he or first base is tagged before he reaches first base. If, however, he actually reaches the dugout or dugout steps, he may not then attempt to go to first base and shall be out. (c) A fair ball, after having passed a fielder other than the pitcher, or after having been touched by a fielder, including the pitcher, shall touch an umpire or runner on fair territory;

Huisj
10-14-2005, 04:16 PM
The firstbaseman is touching first base when he makes his scoop...

That's true, but the catcher is never touching anything whether he catches it out of the air or scoops it off the ground.

Huisj
10-14-2005, 04:18 PM
6.09
The batter becomes a runner when_ (a) He hits a fair ball; (b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out; When a batter becomes a base runner on a third strike not caught by the catcher and starts for the dugout, or his position, and then realizes his situation and attempts then to reach first base, he is not out unless he or first base is tagged before he reaches first base. If, however, he actually reaches the dugout or dugout steps, he may not then attempt to go to first base and shall be out. (c) A fair ball, after having passed a fielder other than the pitcher, or after having been touched by a fielder, including the pitcher, shall touch an umpire or runner on fair territory;

Interesting that this language just says "not caught." This is left kind of vague it seems, because whether something is considered a catch depends on the situation generally. An outfielder only catches a ball if it doesn't first hit the ground, but a first baseman can catch a throw that hits the ground.

Iwritecode
10-14-2005, 04:24 PM
Interesting that this language just says "not caught." This is left kind of vague it seems, because whether something is considered a catch depends on the situation generally. An outfielder only catches a ball if it doesn't first hit the ground, but a first baseman can catch a throw that hits the ground.

I don't understand why you are confusing these two things. If an outfielder catches a fly ball, the batter is out. The ball never touched the ground.

If a firstbasemen catches a scoop out of the dirt the ball had to have already touched the ground at some point in time or else he would never have the ball being thrown to him. The second the ball hits the ground in fair territory the runner is safe until he's either tagged out or forced out at first base.

If the catcher scoops a swinging third strike out of the dirt the batter is safe until he is tagged out, forced out at first or touches the dugout steps.

Huisj
10-14-2005, 04:54 PM
I don't understand why you are confusing these two things. If an outfielder catches a fly ball, the batter is out. The ball never touched the ground.

If a firstbasemen catches a scoop out of the dirt the ball had to have already touched the ground at some point in time or else he would never have the ball being thrown to him. The second the ball hits the ground in fair territory the runner is safe until he's either tagged out or forced out at first base.

If the catcher scoops a swinging third strike out of the dirt the batter is safe until he is tagged out, forced out at first or touches the dugout steps.

Yes, duh, I understand all this. What I'm trying to get at is why a pitch that hits the dirt is considered to be in play. The ball never hits the bat, so how does it fit into either of these two categories (flyball example or 1st baseman scoop example)?

Yes, I know that a batted ball must be caught on the fly, and if it is not, it doesn't matter if the throw to first is scooped or caught out of the air. But a third strike is not touched by a bat, so why would it be treated this way?

I understand that the rule exists, and I'm not trying to be stupid about interpreting it, but I'm just trying to see how it fits in with other normal baseball logic.

Paulwny
10-14-2005, 05:21 PM
However, that idea brings up more questions that seem inconsistent with that logic. For example, if that were the reason behind the ruling, why is it only on strike three? And why doesn't it apply with a runner on first?

If there was a runner at first with less then 2 out the catcher would always drop the 3rd strike and then throw to 2nd to start a dp.

Iwritecode
10-14-2005, 06:41 PM
I understand that the rule exists, and I'm not trying to be stupid about interpreting it, but I'm just trying to see how it fits in with other normal baseball logic.

It doesn't. :cool:

Huisj
10-14-2005, 06:55 PM
It doesn't. :cool:

whew, that's what I was afraid of. But actually I'm glad others feel that way about it too, because at least there's still hope that I might not be completely insane.

Now, what was the tougher of my two activities this afternoon?
-Working on my Mechanics of Composites homework
or
-Trying to reason my way through the baseball rule book.

I'd say it's a tossup:o:

itsnotrequired
10-14-2005, 07:21 PM
Where would one go to find out something like this?

http://baseball-almanac.com/feats/feats19.shtml