Danny Espinosa Got Hit By a Strike
Coming into the NLDS, Dusty Baker took a good number of questions about the shortstop position. Danny Espinosa finished the year in a hell of a slump, but as Baker said to the media, he didn’t really have any other options. Espinosa was and is the best shortstop on the roster, and you have to give him one thing: for all of his flaws, there might be no one better at getting hit by a pitch.
So, actually, nevermind, there is still a Brandon Guyer floating around out there. But Espinosa is a hit-by-pitch machine, and he’s already been struck three times in the series, which is incredible. Even more incredible is the most recent HBP, because, see, Espinosa was granted first base, even though he got hit by a strike.
A strike!
Danny Espinosa got hit by a strike.
A strike, is what Danny Espinosa got hit by.
A borderline strike — sure, I’ll grant that. Espinosa didn’t get hit by a pitch that was literally down the middle, because that would be a physical impossibility. But what we’re dealing with here is insane. I went to Baseball Savant and pulled all the 2016 hit-by-pitches. You can basically see the bodies of righties and lefties in the plot below, and the overwhelming majority of these pitches make total sense. With a few, you see the profiles of elbows. The pitch to Espinosa is the only one that would’ve otherwise counted as a strike for the pitcher.
There’s a rule about this.
(6.08) The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when:
[…]
He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (A) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (B) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball;If the ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a strike, whether or not the batter tries to avoid the ball. If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a ball if he makes no attempt to avoid being touched.
Usually, when people complain about HBPs, they complain that umpires don’t enforce the make-an-effort part of this rule. That whole thing about making an attempt to avoid being touched by the ball — umpires almost literally never use that. So, the precedent has essentially been established. The rule is a non-rule. But here people can complain twice over. Espinosa made no attempt to move, and the pitch was a strike. So that’s two reasons why he shouldn’t have been granted first base, two reasons right there in the rule book. Dave Roberts, though, came out to make his case, and Espinosa still remained at first. He was never called back, and he was never going to be. The rules take care to detail what ought to count as a hit-by-pitch, but it seems that that part of the book was never assigned in umpiring school.
Jeff made Lookout Landing a thing, but he does not still write there about the Mariners. He does write here, sometimes about the Mariners, but usually not.



Well that was fast, Dave. Maybe this can get fixed in the offseason, right after the slide rule.
Dodgers should put the next one in his ear, too bad it is an all important playoff game.
No, they shouldn’t resort to battery because he gained an unfair advantage in a baseball game, and it’s ridiculous that you’d suggest otherwise.
It’s garbage. Dude definitely needs to take one in the chops. Maybe an infielder can blast him in the face with an “errant” throw.
No, they shouldn’t resort to battery because he gained an unfair advantage in a baseball game, and it’s ridiculous that you’d suggest otherwise.
You could say he pulled a Shane Victorino. http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/shane-victorino-and-near-strike-hit-by-pitches/
I mean…he practically dropped his elbow in front of the catcher’s glove!!! How far over the plate does a batter get to hang out before the ump applies the rules?
It shouldn’t have been a HBP because he moved his elbow into the path of pitch. I have seen guys not awarded first base after being hit by a pitch and they didn’t blatantly lean in to the pitch like Espinoza did.
Nats fan here – give the guy a break, this was the only chance he had to get on base. Espinosa is perhaps the worst hitter in baseball. Close eyes, swing hard. Glad he finally adjusted and got on base.
Looking at Brooks Baseball for each game, I had the following thoughts (caveat I am rooting for the Nats):
Game 1: Bellino was OK on his calls on LHH, maybe with LA getting a slight edge; calls on RHH were pretty good, but again LA benefitted from two misses.
Game 2: Guccione did a good job on LHH, with Nats maybe getting slight edge; calls on RHH were awful, with clear benefit to LA.
Game 3: Kulpa did a great job on LHH aside from horrible Espinosa HBP; OK job on RHH, but with no real edge to either squad despite some misses.
You say there was no real edge to either squad in Game 3, but see http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/instagraphs/yasiel-puig-got-screwed/
“[T]he run value of calling this a strike instead of a ball was 0.6.” In a game that was 4-3 Nats at the time of the call, I’d say there’s a decent argument the Nats benefited substantially from that call. Of course, I’m rooting for the Dodgers, so my perspective might be as biased as yours. (Although I got a fangraphs article backing me. 🙂
@phpope: You’re totally correct and I had read that post. As soon as I hit send I immediately wished I could have edited to note the Puig call. I didn’t dig into the circumstances for every miss, but I would suspect that – while a single call may be pivotal in retrospect – it’s probably best to look at overall umpire performance in context-neutral position. It’s difficult to gauge what effect any one call has on a game, even early in a count, since everything that follows could be altered by a bad call. Plus, umps *should* be just as evenly good or bad whatever the context.