Javier Baez’s Slightly Controversial Brilliance
It’s convenient the way this worked out. In the worst-case interpretation, Javier Baez got away with something on Sunday. In the best-case interpretation, Baez might’ve taken advantage of a rule-book loophole. What Baez did provoked Dave Roberts to complain at least a little bit, but in the end, the Dodgers scored one run, and the Cubs scored less than that. Because the Dodgers won, Baez’s play doesn’t matter. So now we can talk about it a little bit without emotions threatening to take over.
In Game 2, Baez was praised for his casual on-the-fly brilliance, and it came up because of a double play he started in the top of the sixth. The play allowed for the Cubs to get out of a jam, keeping the deficit at the narrowest margin. The Dodgers wouldn’t have any real protest if Baez started a regular double play. But this double play started with Baez very much intentionally not catching a catchable baseball.
Odds are, most of you have seen it. But I’m sure not all of you have seen it, so, let’s take care of that. Top of the sixth, two on, one out. Joc Pederson at the plate. Pederson’s jammed, and the result is a flare.
The baserunners react immediately, freezing because they recognize the ball is headed for a glove and they don’t want to get doubled off. About that! Baez takes a little step back and fields the ball on the shortest of hops. It’s not a fly ball anymore. The throw to second gets one out. And then there’s a little confusion. Baez kind of deked everyone, but the ball finds its way to third, and then it finds its way back to short, and Adrian Gonzalez is hung up and he’s not outrunning anybody. It’s an odd double play, but it’s a double play. Carl Edwards Jr. enjoyed it.
The praise for Baez was immediate. That took either some instincts or it took some thoughtful planning, but whatever the case, Baez turned a one-out play into a two-out play. If you’re into this stuff, that extra out improved the Cubs’ odds of winning by about five percentage points. That’s a pretty big difference, as plays in the sixth inning go, and this all fits within the theme that in this particular October, Javier Baez is truly coming of age. He’s exciting *and* he’s playing like a veteran. The only thing here was the slightly controversial aspect of it.
Because Javier Baez could’ve made that catch. He sort of had to try to not make that catch. He wouldn’t have had to go to any extra effort, and, there’s a rule about that. Except that there kind of isn’t? It’s a chance for all of us to learn!
Here are the official Major League Baseball rules. Let’s begin here with the less obvious one. I’ll just copy and paste:
A batter is out when:
[…]
(12) An infielder intentionally drops a fair fly ball or line drive, with first, first and second, first and third, or first, second and third base occupied before two are out. The ball is dead and runner or runners shall return to their original base or bases;APPROVED RULING: In this situation, the batter is not out if the infielder permits the ball to drop untouched to the ground, except when the Infield Fly rule applies.
The key part is in the approved ruling — the part about the ball dropping untouched to the ground. Baez made sure to not touch the ball before it got to the grass:
That leaves us with the infield-fly part. The reason the previous thing is in there is because no infielder would want to intentionally let a line drive fall in untouched. It would bounce away, all fast-like. Pederson’s batted ball wasn’t an ordinary line drive. It also wasn’t an ordinary pop-up. It just functioned a lot like an ordinary pop-up. And Baez was right there to catch it if he wanted:
I will now copy from the definitions of terms:
An INFIELD FLY is a fair fly ball (not including a line drive nor an attempted bunt) which can be caught by an infielder with ordinary effort, when first and second, or first, second and third bases are occupied, before two are out. The pitcher, catcher and any outfielder who stations himself in the infield on the play shall be considered infielders for the purpose of this rule.
You see why the infield-fly rule wasn’t called. The ball was too much like a line drive, getting to Baez in roughly two seconds. Yet according to Statcast, the ball left the bat at 22 degrees, and 59 miles per hour. That is a very poorly-hit batted ball, which anyone can tell from the video. It’s a classic tweener, underscoring the problems with classification buckets and subjective determinations. It’s a judgment call, and in the judgment of the on-field umpires, Pederson’s ball wasn’t fly-y enough.
For Baez, there was very little downside doing what he did. It’s possible he could’ve misplayed the short-hop, and it’s possible he could’ve made another kind of error. The upside, though, was the relatively easy double play, and even if an umpire called the infield-fly rule, catching or not catching the ball wouldn’t matter. It would be smart for every infielder to do this provided said infielder is almost certain he isn’t going to mess it up. Baez wasn’t going to mess that up.
The debate has to do with what should be done about this, if anything. I feel like it’s clear this isn’t in the spirit of the rules. If it’s all about catches being made with ordinary effort, then just going along with the thought, this should’ve just been Pederson’s out. The Dodgers should’ve kept batting, because Baez intentionally let a ball drop so as to take advantage of the baserunners being frozen. The rule just isn’t written to cover all its own bases, not that there’s any way to make it perfect. And not that this even comes up all that much. This just could’ve been a very significant play. And it’s just right in that gray area. If the Dodgers had suffered worse, they could be justified in being deeply upset.
Having gone over the rules, I feel like the right call was made. I also feel like the right call shouldn’t be the right call. I also understand I’m just one man with one set of opinions, so now I’m soliciting yours. I’d love to know what you think about this. And I’m ever so thankful there were no greater repercussions.
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.
What does Sam Holbrook think?
He probably thinks that it is hard enough to not screw up the infield fly rule on fly balls to the outfield, so there is no way umpires should be expected to make this judgment call in less than a second.
I was struggling with whether an infield fly should have been called. But from the time that it’s apparent that the ball could be caught to when the ball hits the ground, I can’t even get “infield fly, batter’s out” (assuming that’s what they say) out of my mouth.
That play only looks so simple and routine from his read and instincts. You have to be able to call it an out with any second baseman back there.
Jeff said: “It’s a judgment call, and in the judgment of the on-field umpires, Pederson’s ball wasn’t fly-y enough.”
It should be noted that the definitions section of the rules states that “A FLY BALL is a batted ball that goes high in the air in flight.” I guess you could still argue that whether that ball went “high in the air” was a judgment call, but it was by no means a close one. That was absolutely not a fly ball, and therefore not an infield fly. See example 6 at http://www.closecallsports.com/2012/05/rule-200-infield-fly-and-605e-getting.html (video at http://m.mlb.com/video/v9264765/cinoak-geren-tossed-for-arguing-infield-fly-rule).
Personally, I’d favor eliminating the infield fly rule outright. Its downside is that it creates a notoriously confusing, non-intuitive rule that is not applied terribly consistently. Its upside is that it protects the offensive team from making two outs on a popup. And yet nobody worries about protecting the offensive team from making two outs on a ground ball or a line drive. In my view, if the defensive team is savvy and quick enough to drop a pop up and get two outs, more power to them. If the offensive team doesn’t like it- don’t pop it up!
Do you propose that batters that strike out on a dropped third strike with first base occupied and less than two outs be forced to run to first?
The automatic out is a protection for the offense against the double play the exact same way that the infield fly rule is. (Hey, why not intentionally drop strike three, throw down to second and then first for the double play! Smart Catcherz!) Why protect a team from a double play on a strike out if a strike out is the worst possible out?
There’s a good reason for the infield fly rule. Along with the rule I stated above, it shouldn’t go anywhere. Run scoring is hard enough as it is.
“Do you propose that batters that strike out on a dropped third strike with first base occupied and less than two outs be forced to run to first?”
Why not? A double play on a strikeout makes more sense than a double-play on a groundball.
Wut? Why?
” Its upside is that it protects the offensive team from making two outs on a popup. ”
No. It exists to prevent a situation in which no matter what the runners do, the defense will record two outs on a single play ~99% of the time. Don’t run, IF lets ball drop, DP. Run, IF catches ball, DP or TP.
The definitions section of the rules state the following:
A FLY BALL is a batted ball that goes high in the air in flight.
A LINE DRIVE is a batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the fielder without touching the ground.
A GROUND BALL is a batted ball that rolls or bounces close to the ground.
A BUNT is a batted ball not swung at, but intentionally met with the bat and tapped slowly within the infield.
Every fair ball must be classified as one of the above types of batted balls. We can quickly rule that Pederson’s ball was not a bunt. But, which of the other three was it?
Pederson’s batted ball was clearly not a line drive. A line drive must be sharp, direct, and not touch the ground. I don’t believe it was sharp, but that’s arguable. However, the batted ball definitely touched the ground; therefore, it clearly wasn’t a line drive.
So, was Pederson’s batted ball a Fly Ball, or a Ground Ball?
Let’s examine the case for a Ground Ball, a batted ball that rolls or bounces close to the ground. The batted ball definitely didn’t roll, but it did bounce. Was it ‘close to the ground’? Not particularly so.
Let’s examine the case for a Fly Ball, a batted ball that goes high into the air. Pederson’s batted ball certainly went into the air, but did it go ‘high’? Not particularly so.
So, the argument is, was the ball a Ground Ball or a Fly Ball based on the above definitions? Was the ball ‘close to the ground’? Or was the ball ‘high in the air’? Remember, it has to be one.
My personal opinion is that the ball was higher in the air than it was closer to the ground. Therefore, Pederson’s ball was a fly ball, and the infield fly rule should have been applied.
(As an aside, I’ve seen Roberto Alomar try this play. The umpire ruled infield fly rule a split second before the ball hit the ground and the runners stayed put. Don’t know how I can look this up in a play index and verify with video. .)
Actually, it pretty clearly was a line drive. Not every line drive is 100+ mph.
As per the Rule Book:
A LINE DRIVE is a batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the fielder without touching the ground.
It is clearly NOT a Line Drive since the ball hit the ground. The ball is either a Fly Ball or a Ground Ball.
so a line drive is a line drive until it isn’t. This is the analysis I come to the comment section for.
Don’t let the roolz get in the way of my baseballz. lol. Love your commentary, please stick to the ESPN boards.
The batted ball was never a line drive to begin with. The ball wasn’t “sharply hit”. It must be “sharply hit” to be ruled a Line Drive as per the MLB Rule book. (Ask yourself, how do you see a broken bat hit that’s “sharply hit”?)
If you’re absolutely convinced that it was “sharply hit”, then you can’t explain your way around the fact that the ball hit the ground. Therefore, not a Line Drive
Therefore, the batted ball is a Ground Ball, or a Fly Ball. I’ll let you tell me which you think it is.
If you think Fly ball, then Infield Fly Rule. If you think Groundball, then no Infield Fly Rule.
There is such thing as a soft line drive. That is not a term that I made up. For instance, if you look at MLB Gameday, which is MLB’s own classification system, it will say “[player] lines out softly to [player].”
To your second point about it bouncing: it bounced in the outfield grass. If it hit the dirt, I would agree with you that it is a ground ball. But it made it to the grass. Every line drive (except for home runs and caught line-outs) bounces. You wouldn’t call a line drive single into right field a ground ball just because it bounced on the grass.
I enjoy having a discussion here. In the future, please do not preface your remarks with ad hominem attacks. They are unnecessary and negatively impact readers’ opinions of your arguments.
Phoenix2042, the ‘ad hominem attack’ was me returning Weston Taylor’s serve, who added nothing to the conversation. Sorry, if you thought that it was directed at you.
We have to be carful as fans, commenters, statisticians, etc., not to confuse the way that we describe baseball with how baseball is described in the rule book. They are very different things.
Of course you and I and MLB Gameday would describe Pederson’s hit as a soft liner, or a tweener, or whatever. But, no such terminology exists in the rule book. Nor does batted ball data descriptors such as exit velocity, launch angle, etc.
There isn’t even such a thing as a ‘pop up’ in the rule book. But, to you and I, we know that a ‘pop up’ is generally a high fly ball on the infield. It’s simply easier to say Player X hit a ‘pop-up’ than Player X hit a high fly ball on the infield.
Based on the MLB Rule Book, there are only four types of batted balls, and I’ve listed the direct definitions in my previous post. From a ‘rules interpretation’ stand point (not a fan stand point, or a casual stand point), the batted ball must be able to be described as one of the four fair batted ball types. We can all agree that from a rules stand point, the batted ball was not a bunt. So, was it a Line Drive, a Fly Ball, or a Ground Ball?
It was certainly not a Line Drive. The ball was not sharply hit. But hey, maybe some people want to argue that a casually described ‘broken bat flare’ is a sharply hit ball (remember we can’t use exit velocity or launch angle.). I didn’t think there would be any of those people here, but clearly looks like there are. So, the most absolute, Boolean reference in any of the Fly Ball, Ground Ball, Line Drive definitions occurs in the Line Drive definition. That is, the batted ball is not considered a Line Drive if it hits the ground. Therefore, not only was the ball not sharply hit, but the ball hit the ground. Therefore, it is not a Line Drive.
It must be a Fly Ball or a Ground ball. You be the umpire, and decide.
Darren, you’re presuming that every event is clearly addressed in the MLB rules. In fact, there are many gray areas. When a play falls in one of those, precedent and common sense reign.
It is clear that the batted ball in question does not closely fit any of the definitions. It fails a specific test in each case. So…
Precedent — I have never seen infield fly called on such a ball, though others may disagree.
Common sense — I submit that anyone familiar with baseball, asked to fit that batted ball to one of the four types by name alone, would call it a line drive.
Thanks for the discussion. I agree that we would all describe the ball casually as a soft liner, or flare. I’ve seen Roberto Alomar attempt this exact play, and the umpire ruled an infield fly a split second before the ball hit the ground to protect the runners. Alomar stepped back in the same way that Baez did. The umpire saw what Alomar was attempting to do and made the in my opinion) appropriate call.
For anyone out there – is there a way to find out every game for which there was an infield fly call that Alomar played in as a jay? I would love to find this. With it being so long ago there is a chance that I’m not remembering correctly. While watching Baez last night, I’m yelling “He’s going for the Alomar play!”, as he let’s it drop. Great play by Baez no doubt.
9.01(c) Each umpire has authority to rule on any point not specifically covered in these rules.
Not a “by the book” line drive or fly ball? The umpire decides. The umpire has complete authority to call this play as he judges.
The way it reads above makes it seem like a batted ball has to be caught/touched before hitting the ground to be considered a line drive. I know that is not the case but “from the bat to the fielder w/o touching the ground” paints a picture of a catch to me. We know a line drive doesn’t have to be near/at a fielder to be a line drive though. Too many interpretations in the rule book.
YKnotDisco,
“A line drive doesn’t have to be near/at a fielder to be a line drive though.”
Correct, if you and I want to casually describe the type of single/double, etc. that a player got.
But, ask yourself this – When and why would an umpire ever need to determine or describe the difference between a Ground Ball that’s gotten between two infielders and a Line Drive as it pertains to the rules? They wouldn’t. So, from a rules perspective, the definition makes sense. The rules don’t care about how you an I want to talk about baseball.
I meant how it reads in the rule book (what classifies as a line drive) and what it means are not exactly the same, to me. The definition of line drive in the rule book could be interpreted differently by different people.
If that’s true, there has never been a line-drive single. Ever. Which takes some of the water out of the “a line drive can’t touch the ground” angle. “Line drive” does not equal “line out”.
Dude are you serious. That would mean that all line drives are outs. Every hit that’s not a home run hits the ground eventually.
This. The fallacy started with the posted definition:
“A LINE DRIVE is a batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the fielder without touching the ground”
By this logic, there is no such thing as a line drive in the gap.
Yes, I’m serious. An umpire will never need to make a call that distinguishes between a line drive and a fly ball in the outfield. Therefore, there is no need to define the term with that context in mind.
Of course there are line drive gappers and other line drive hits that you and I describe as fans of the game, but there is no reason for an umpire to make these distinctions.
The term “Line Drive” is literally used 3 times in the entire MLB Rule Book. Under the definition of Line Drive, under the definition of Infield Fly, and once under Rule 5.09(a). The term has therefore specifically been defined for the context of the Infield Fly Rule.
People can down vote this all they want. But I’m not sure why this is so difficult for people to grasp. Maybe had Jeff included these facts in the article it wouldn’t be so confusing for people. I’m not sure why he included all of the relevant definitions except for Line Drive, when it clearly has been defined specifically for the Infield Fly Rule. Maybe Jeff can provide a brief comment on this if he’s reading?
“Sharply” refers to the launch angle of the hit ball, not the exit velocity.
The ball was more line drive. Like you said, it got to Baez quick. He also got to it while technically in the outfield. I believe ball landed in the grass making it the outfield. Let’s just call it what it is. An extremely lucky, rare, perfect ball to allow an unconventional double play. Don’t want to let it happen, don’t get jammed.
If getting a foot onto the grass is the difference maker, get ready for teams to bring the grass in… to take advantage of this loophole in the rules.
how would that be taking advantage of it? The other team could do the same thing to them.
You also take the risk that the ball hits the lip of the grass if you try to play the infield back, as your infielders would then be positioned in the grass.
I’m not sure why it shouldn’t be completely allowed. Jacoby Ellsbury has a batting stance that allows him to take advantage of the catcher’s interference rule. Brandon Guyer has a batting stance that causes him to get hit by pitches at an exorbitant rate. The “spirit” of these rules is to protect batters, not give them an advantage, but it would seem silly to suggest that their batting stances should be outlawed. While this play was an incredibly intelligent, heads-up play by Baez, it also was an extremely lucky one for him and the Cubs. The situation had to be just right: hit a little harder and straighter, and he has to catch it; hit a little higher, and it’s an infield fly; hit a little lower, and it’s an obvious grounder (and potentially a double play anyway). I don’t think too many people question the rules if an outfielder lets a deep foul ball drop when there’s one out with a runner on third in a tie game in the bottom of the ninth. However, I’m open to hearing arguments for a rule change or why the umps should’ve called the play differently (although I really don’t see how they could have).
I’d add to your post the few pitchers who have the deliveries where they jump off the mound and the ones who balk every pitch/so often that they just don’t get called for it
It’s interesting that you bring up Guyer, bc in order for him to get awarded first base on all those HBPs, the umpires have to ignore the literal meaning of text in the rule book that states the batter must make an attempt to avoid being hit by the pitch. I assume the “spirit” or purpose of that rule is to encourage hitters to avoid purposely getting beaned. Not enforcing that rule as written contradicts its purpose, but umpires do it anyway because … that’s the way it’s been enforced in the past and probably bc they don’t think literally enforcing that rule improves the game (or maybe it’s just bc baseball hasn’t bothered to tell them they should stop making up their own rules).
The “spirit” or purpose of the infield fly rule is clearly to protect the offense from having all “infield flies” turning into automatic double plays. I’d argue that the spirit of the rule also includes soft liners like the one hit to Baez, bc the result is the same – an easy play turns into two outs bc a fielder let’s a ball he can easily catch drop. This is entirely different than letting a fly ball in foul territory drop with a runner at 3B. In that instance, the defense is giving up an out in the hope they can get a “better” out later. Baez, by letting that ball drop, is turning a batted ball that results in one out almost all of the time into two outs, and risking almost nothing to do it. At some point, the rulemakers decided they didn’t like this sort of thing, bc it didn’t seem fair, or it didn’t seem consistent with the spirit of good sportsmanship (or maybe just bc these plays are annoying and just don’t “seem” like they ought to be allowed). I can’t think of any principled reason why a distinction should be drawn bw an infield pop-up and a soft infield fliner like we saw last night.
I voted no to the first as I think that was catch-able with ordinary effort but I voted Yes for the second because I believe the infield fly rule is stupid. If you hit a pop up you should suffer the consequences. A pop up is the worst batted ball there is; I have no issue with defenses being allowed to intentionally drop them and turn double, or even triple, plays.
Jeff loves some Baez!
It’s a bit of a cheap move but not something that happens enough to worry about changing the rules. He took advantage of a rare event and is this seasons “chosen one” so it will be praised.
Baez is looking a lot like a younger Ian Kinsler, on the bases and in the field except Baez is a much better athlete.
Except that Kinsler is better than Baez at everything even at age 34. So…okay I guess. I like Baez too, but I’d prefer to wait until he’s really good for a few years and a full time player before raving too much. It is notable that Kinsler is notorious for dropping pop-ups to get the faster runner at 1B out instead of the hitter, though.
Saying that one is a better athlete =/= better player.
Sure, but “athleticism” can mean all kinds of things. Ian Kinsler probably schools Javy in basketball too 🙂 Is he still not the better athlete? Does what you do in the game, i.e. what actually matters, not count either? I just don’t see why the better defender, baserunner, and hitter by either OBP or power, is somehow not the better athlete. I get it. Javy is the hotness at the moment. It was just a pretty silly comment to call Baez a much better athlete than young Ian Kinsler, or even current Ian Kinsler. There’s no basis for the statement.
Eh, younger Ian Kinsler was an elite base runner, like +6.5 BsR a year, Baez could definitely get there, but that’s a pretty lofty comparison.
Man that was really a risky move with the lip of the grass right there.
Jeff mentioned the bounce but that’s the biggest risk in this, the type of ‘qualifying line drive’ you need to pull this off is more often than not going to have some crazy side spin that can eat up the fielder.
So long as any “drop don’t the ball on purpose to get a double play” rule exists, there will have to be some definition of what counts as a catch-able ball. And while you could write the rule so that it would be (theoretically) perfectly enforceable using trajectory and velocity information, it would not be reasonable for fielders to make such a distinction on a live ball.
At the end of the day, the only balls that work for cases like that are balls which are poorly hit. In some vague idealist notion of fairness, we should recognize that a poorly hit ball with runners on base is often a double play. That this gray area creates an opportunity a few extra double plays on poorly hit balls, assuming the fielder recognizes the situation and executes accordingly, does not bother me.
The rules don’t exist in a vacuum. We can even change them, and we do, frequently! Maybe the right question in the moment is “was that play against the rules,” but as soon as the play is in the past, the right question becomes “do we want that to be against the rules,” and then, “how do we shape the rules so that it is/isn’t.” Whether the play was literally an infield fly or not is a boring and pointless conversation to have.
It’s less deceptive than a pick off move and definitely than the hidden ball trick. It’s just heads up defense. Absolutely no problem with that. He followed the rules to the letter and made a nice play. That wasn’t anywhere near a fly ball. 100 times out of 100 that’s a line drive. Soft, sure, but no scorer in the history of baseball calls that anything but a liner. Honestly, I don’t understand why anyone calls it controversial. I think people are just reacting like anyone who is on the wrong side of a great defensive play. It sucks when it happens to you, but these guys are professionals so that’s bound to happen sometimes.
As per the rule book, Pederson’s ball was clearly not a Line Drive (and clearly not a bunt). It is either a Fly Ball, or a Ground Ball depending on the interpretations of the wording ‘high’ (with respect to fly ball) and ‘close to the ground’ (with respect to ground ball).
By saying, “that wasn’t anywhere near a fly ball”, you are also saying ‘that definitely was a ground ball’.
The play is controversial because Pederson’s batted ball doesn’t neatly fit into the definition of ground ball since the ball wasn’t particularly close to the ground.
Actually it’s controversial because it clearly fits the definition of a line drive, and it is borderline easily catchable. Some people say he should have caught the line drive, while others say he is allowed to back up a step and play it on a hop. No one is saying that this is a ground ball. I mean, except for Mr. Darren, that is.
Hi Phoenix2042,
I appreciate the dialogue. I enjoy having a discussion here. In the future, please do not preface your remarks with ad hominem attacks. They are unnecessary and negatively impact readers’ opinions of your arguments.
In the MLB rule book the INFIELD FLY RULE specifically references LINE DRIVE. In the MLB Rule Book the definition of a LINE DRIVE is as follows:
A LINE DRIVE is a batted ball that goes sharp and direct from the bat to the fielder without touching the ground.
How does the Pederson batted ball ‘clearly fit the definition’ of a Line Drive? There is literally nothing in the definition that matches up with Pederson’s batted ball.
(There is no way of knowing what the umpire thought of the batted ball. Unless he spoke of it, which they tend not to do. Based on the outcome of the play, the umpire didn’t rule the ball a line drive, bunt, or fly ball. It appears that he ruled it a ground ball. Personally, I would’ve ruled a fly ball, but hey, no one cares or should care about that.)
In this instance, the batted ball DID go sharp and direct from the bat to the fielder without touching the ground. It was completely up to the fielder as to whether he wanted to let the ball drop or not.
In all honesty, we know that all line-drives will eventually be ground balls unless they are caught. It’s not trajectory off the bat, because if this ball is hit 10 mph slower it bounces long before anybody calls it controversial. ultimately, this ball had an angle that would carry it more horizontal than vertical on a bounce (not a pup-up) and bounced in front of an infielder playing within the range of his normal positional alignment. Once it bounces, I’d call this a ground ball. Maybe an incognito one, and the worst possible outcome for the offense, but a ground ball none the less. The rule is there to prevent knocking down line drives, or camping under pop-ups. This play still required the fielder to essentially field a ground-ball cleanly (otherwise it goes to the outfield) and the defense to make two throws. Plus, the league doesn’t want to force more judgement calls on the umps than it has to.
I think this is just a blind spot in the rules, and one that is very hard to correct. You can debate definitions of fly ball or line drive, but you also have to take into account the practicalities of making the call on the field. The umpire has to judge whether the ball could be caught “with ordinary effort,” and that’s a very difficult call to make with a little flare that’s only in the air for a second or two. Does ordinary effort include reaction time? What if the ball had been hit another two feet to the left and two feet in — could Baez have caught it with ordinary effort? What if it was Daniel Murphy instead of Baez?
I agree with Jeff that the play goes against the spirit of the infield fly rule, but I think this is one of those tough cases where you just have to shrug and accept that rules can never be perfectly written or applied.
Completely agree, any rule should be against the flyball not the defense. You can’t have rule based upon the outcome. If Baez airmailed the throw to a confused Russell, anyone still calling that an out?
This assumes that umpires don’t routinely ignore the language of the rule book when it makes sense or there’s an established tradition of doing so. They do. I really don’t care about the language of the rule, and hemming and hawing over whether it’s a fly ball or whether it’s ordinary effort misses the point for which the rule was written in the first place — to protect *the offense* by preventing automatic double plays. I don’t see how the effect of a soft infield fliner under those circumstances is any different than a pop-up. Either umpires should ignore the language of the rule and call the infield fly in a manner that better comports with the purpose of the rule or baseball should rewrite the rule with an emphasis on its purpose being to protect the offense.
I largely agree, I think there’s enough room in the wording of the rule and certainly within the spirit of the rule that infield fly could have been called. And if it had been, and we were here arguing over whether THAT was the right call, I could have written almost the exact same comment I did above. It’s a hard case that doesn’t fit neatly into the rules, and both sides have good arguments but not definitive arguments.
I’m curious, since you mentioned it, how would you rewrite the rule to account for a play like last night’s?
I think it would be enough to just add a section to the rule book restating the purpose of the rule and saying that it can be applied to soft line drives or fliners. It’s going to be hard to write a perfectly worded rule, and there will still be some borderline cases that are debateable. Still, it seems to me that the Baez play pretty clearly was the sort of result that the infield fly rule was designed to prevent, and that the justification for not calling it there is the wording of the rule and how the rule has been enforced in the past. Basically, baseball needs to say (1) we’re enforcing this rule differently now and (2) the distinction bw line drive and fly ball and ordinary effort and non-ordinary effort isn’t the central concern (it’s whether the rule, in the umpire’s judgment, needs to be invoked to protect the offense).
I like it. I think all sports should give more “this is the intention of the rule, use your best judgment as to whether it applies.” Obviously there’s the risk of inconsistent enforcement, but you’re going to have that no matter what and I think it’s better than trying to write the perfect rule to cover every situation. (Look at the absurdity of the NFL piling on clause after clause trying to define “catch.”)
I think blind spot is a fair description. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that players have an “unwritten rule” or “common courtesy” about not doing this play to each other because it could likely be done A LOT more than it is. If it was such a universally viewed “brilliant play”, I would think more people would be doing it.
No way he did that on purpose. He is a mess out there and was a borderline liability in the field during the Giants series. I think he is pretty overrated, overall.
10/10 trolling, sir! Too bad most fangraphs readers are too educated (in baseball at least) to fall for it. Good one, though!
I agree. That was a perfectly worded and timed troll attempt. Almost as high quality as a good dad joke/pun.
One big reason why Thr33Rings has become the Mike Trout of downvotes.
I know right? I wish the Cubs would trade him for Brandon Crawford, never a liability on the field.
What are you talking about? I love B-Craw but he commits way too many throwing errors. Sure he gets to a lot of deep hit grounders but he boots a lot of those– what’s the point of getting to the balls if you cannot get the runner out. Many Giants fans, like me, joke that Crawford is like a big penis that cannot get erect.
Are you talking about? I love B throat, but he throws too many mistakes. Security reaches deep enough to hit the ground, but he ran a lot of balls is what it is, without a day on the athletes. Many giant fans, like me, you’re kidding Crawford is a huge cock that can not get an erection.
I mostly just thought it was ironic that you see Baez as a liability on the field when Crawford committed his error in the 9th inning of an elimination game and immediately following the Giants Win Expectancy dropped from 43.5% to 13.6% when Baez hit his single. I wasn’t being serious about the trade. As a side note I think you are selling your guy short. He only committed 5 throwing errors this year (and 9 in each of the two prior years) and had 19 DRS this year along with a 22.1 UZR/150
You sir, are a visionary.
The runners froze and the ball was hit at 22 degrees, those 2 things very clearly indicate a line drive. It’s not quite parallel to the ground, but it was closer any other trajectory definition. If Baez plays that like most other 2B, he stands pat and catches that ball chest high and we don’t get to see the ball make that bizarre descent, which could be caused by spin, too.
The ball wasn’t hit right at him. He had to move several feet back and to his left. He did it so quickly it looks like he was all ready there, but he wasn’t. Whether or not it was ethical, or legal, not withstanding; few, if any, other players could have reacted that quickly and decided so fast. The guy is a freak.
I’m going to strongly disagree with you right there. That play wasn’t anything that any other major league caliber second baseman could not have made. We have to get a hold of ourselves with this baez stuff. We all love the guy and the way he’s doing things, but c’mon.
If I had to guess, based on what Ive seen and experienced through college ball and coaching various levels, this type of play is frowned upon among peers, because it’s a “gray area” play, it can make opponents look stupid, and even end in possible dangerous plays just as late slides, etc … and I would not be surprised to find out if there’s an “unwritten rule” about letting a ball “short hop” when it could easily be caught.
As I said in a previous post … 2nd baseman, in general, seem to natural agitators with their deeks, fake cuts, half tags, fake call outs, etc that if it were an accepted play, then we would see the Murphys, Utleys, Phillips, etc of the world doing it every chance they get.
It’s so strange to me that umpires routinely ignore the literal meaning of text in the rule book (the strike zone, etc.), invent rules out of whole cloth that have no textual basis (the neighborhood play), and yet on a play that so very clearly falls under the *purpose* of the infield fly rule (that is, to keep gimme outs from turning into automatic double plays), the umps won’t call the infield fly rule (“bc it’s not a fly ball, and that’s what the rule book says, so derpy derpy doo!”). Yet they will call the infield fly rule on a play that so very clearly does *not* fall under the *purpose* of the infield fly rule (yeah, I’m looking at you, Sam Holbrook). If there is ever a time to ignore the text (and clearly the umps have no problems ignoring the text in other situations) it’s when ignoring the text better enforces the purpose for which the text was written. The dividing line shouldn’t be whether in the umpire’s judgment the batted ball is an infield “fly ball” or an “infield soft line drive”, but rather, “can the infielder let the ball drop and easily turn what would ordinarily be one out into an automatic double play?” If the answer is yes, then you invoke the infield fly rule. If the answer is no, you don’t. Why is this so hard? Maybe the answer is just to rewrite the rule book, but the quicker fix would be for umpires to exercise a modicum of common sense.
The umps also need time to call infield fly and make sure that’s communicated to everyone on the field. If the 2B ump called infield fly on the play, and the runner at first didn’t hear and broke for 2nd when it hit the ground because he didn’t hear the fly rule call (and wouldn’t be expecting it on the play), then it’s still a double play.
But yeah, this definitely feels like it falls under the spirit of the infield fly rule (as it was essentially a ball in the air that was catchable with ordinary effort that was let fall to the ground). It’s not too hard to read the rules and call this an infield fly, of course, it’s also easy to read the rules and not call it one.
I disagree that this “if the runner breaks after not hearing the ump” is much of a counter argument. That’s just on the runner. He needs to be paying attention to umps. The fielder would have to also have understood what the rule was and tag the runner rather than think its a force play. So in some cases things would even out, where the runner makes a mistake of sorts, but ends up safe at the next base.
If that’s really a problem, it seems it could be remedied by making the ball dead whenever the infield fly rule is called. Allowing the runners to advance after the infield fly rule is called doesn’t seem to serve any purpose, bc runners never attempt to do that.
The problem with this is that if I’m Baez and the Inf. fly rule is called because I “could have made that catch” I simply say “I misread it, and thought it was hit harder off the bat so I backed up. It died in front of me so it wasn’t really catch-able at all by me under normal effort. The rule should not apply there.”
Or, If I’m a fielder and I DO misread the ball entirely and in dies if front of me and bounces off my glove and away I can say “well, that was catch-able under normal effort, I’m a terrible fielder, but that’s an out anyway.”
I’m not suggesting that the infield fly rule be called any time an infielder “could have made that catch”. I guess I’m missing your point.
Sorry, What I was saying is the phrase that Matt used; “Catchable under normal effort” is the argument many are making in support of this being an infield fly, but “normal effort” isn’t all that easy to judge. As such the rule can’t really be applied here without also opening up other problems of judging a ball as “catchable,” by a given defender who is not in a current position to make the catch, just as Baez was not necessarily in position to make the catch (though we are deeming it catch-able.)
Suggestion as a way of clearing up the infield fly rule: call it the “infield pop up rule” and define it with the same change. I assume I am missing some unfortunate consequences of this change. Anyone see any?
If it was called an infield fly wouldn’t the double play would still stand? The runners are allowed to advance at their own risk. Gonzalez took off and was tagged out. The only difference would be that Pederson was out on the fly and Gonzalez was out on the tag.
Presumably he would not have run.
But once the throw to second occurred, Russell was clearly focused on the DP possibility at first. Gonzalez was both close enough to second base, and second base was also free for him to occupy that all he had to do was step on the base. Instead, once Russell made a move to throw to first, Gonzalez broke for third. At this point, was when he put himself in the run down. It was just poor base running on Gonzalez as he should have been safe at second.
This is only tangentially related to the actual issue here but my big question about the infield fly rule is what exactly is the definition of “infielder.” I’ve looked through the rules and I can’t find a non-tautological one. And this really ought to matter, because in today’s game we have people who are genuinely unambiguously infielders, setting up on the infielder dirt before the pitch, most of the time, but who also routinely set up meaningfully deep into the outfield on certain plays. If the person out in short right field in a shift still counts as an “infielder” then by the terms of the rule you can have 250-foot infield fly balls, maybe more. On the other hand, infielders sometimes do just set up a few feet back into the grass while in a normal defensive alignment (Daniel Murphy would do this with the Mets to compensate for his lack of range); it doesn’t feel like they should cease being infielders on account thereof. (I’m not sure whether Baez was set up on the grass or the dirt at the beginning of this play; he was clearly on the grass when he didn’t catch the ball but that’s irrelevant.)
I think this is a situation where using a “purpose-driven” interpretation helps. If the fly ball hit to the “infielder” is so deep in the outfield that the ball can’t drop uncaught, get picked up, get thrown to one base to get the force, and then relayed to a second base to get another force (bearing in mind how far off the bag the baserunners can safely stray given how deep into the outfield the ball is hit), then there’s no reason to call the infield fly rule. The Sam Holbrook call is a pretty good example of an instance where a fly ball that arguably could be fielded by an infielder with ordinary effort is still unarguably hit deep enough that there’s no reason to protect the offensive team. If Kozma had purposely let that ball drop, there’s no way that there was time for Cardinals to throw to third base and then to second base to get *two* force outs.
That makes sense as what we should do. I’m just literally curious how the rules of baseball define “infielder,” since it’s a term with consequence that I’m fairly sure is not given an explicit non-tautological definition in the actual rulebook.
This is a classic old-man softball move, harder to pull off in baseball but always worth a try. Jose Reyes tried to drop a screaming line drive in a playoff game a few years ago but wasn’t as slick about it as Javy.
I can personally attest if you try to do this in a game your next plate appearance will be interesting haha
We did this in softball. bases loaded, 0-outs. low, Soft liner to SS, he lets his bounce out of his glove (almost on the ground), bare hands and throws home, to first, then rundown between 1st and second. Inning over. No runs scored. Major brawl brought the game to a halt.
(1) I’m not in favor of plays like this. It is not a deceptive skill.
(2) More players could do it, it’s not like they lack the skill to take a half step back and play it on a short hop. Either they view it as bush league or they make sure they get the one out.
I don’t view it as a “brilliant” play by Baez. To me, it’s a “gray area” play. Sure, if it happens for your team, you love it. If it goes against you, you’re fighting mad. You telling me guys that love to irritate like Murphy, Phillips, Utley, etc aren’t aware that they could do this as much as they wanted?
Baez, right now, is getting away with all of his “baseball instincts”, the advancing bases, “stealing” home, letting routine outs drop for DP’s, etc … but if they stop working out, he’ll need to be prepared to get the Sosa-Puig treatment, because players like him (and Hanley, and castro) are loved when everything is going great, but despised when things start to not workout and “brilliant” turns into “dumb”.
I’m a bit surprised by the poll results. Seems like a lot of people either blindly love the cubs and everything they do, or are in favor of having a loophole in a set of lies designed to keep scenarios like this fair to all players (which INCLUDES runners).
I always wonder why infielders don’t let infield flies drop on purpose in case baserunners get confused. Anyway, as long as the infield fly is *something* then I don’t think Baez should be allowed to do that. Smart play regardless.
The rule could easily be emended to add the phrase “or fields a line drive on the first bounce.” After all, those used to be outs, period.
Saying Baez’s play should be illegal is like saying an “intentionally” dropped but catchable foul fly ball in a sac fly situation should be considered live when it hits the ground and the runners can advance. That’s a “spirit of the game” slippery slope.
The situations are different. In the case of letting a fly ball in foul territory drop with a runner at 3B, the defense is giving up an out in the hope they can get a “better” out later. Baez, by letting that ball drop, is turning a batted ball that results in one out almost all of the time into two outs, and risking almost nothing to do it. The argument for calling it there is about protecting the offensive team, which is pretty much f—ed in those situations. If you allow the fielder to decide whether to let that ball drop, the baserunners are placed in an impossible position where they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Obviously the situations both involve a fielder intentionally failing to catch the ball. Both arguments involve a whole lot of human element – depending on umpires’ judgement. I don’t see reason for the concern for the baserunners in this damned if you do/don’t situation. If Joc hits a hard grounder or a screaming liner to 2b it’s probably a double play – why the fervor over the way it went down? Why not just credit the D for making a smart, well executed, and by-the-rules play?
The Dodgers were, in essence, punished for a badly hit ball. I can live with that.
I’m writing only to point out that I was at a Rays/O’s game in 2005 (http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/BAL/BAL200504300.shtml) when Melvin Mora did this–bases loaded, nobody out in the top of the third, with Sydney Ponson having already given up 4 runs in the first two innings, and Mora, playing in on the grass, let a soft liner that he could’ve easily caught drop in front of him, and he started a 5-2-3 double play. (Note that the play-by-play describes it as “Short 3B Line.”)
Ponson got out of the inning, and the then-high-powered Orioles offense (this was during their three-month stretch leading the AL East in 2005, a brief aberration during their 1998-2011 run of futility), behind homers from Surhoff, Tejada, and Roberts, came back for the win.
Melvin Mora remains the best father of quintuplets in major-league history, and also one of my favorite Orioles ever.
It’s a tweener play, but not a common play. So the rule is fine. The only other example I’ve heard was a play by Jeff Bagwell, charging a sac bunt attempt that was weakly “lined” toward him. He made the same play. Hit the brakes, backed up, and let the ball bounce. Got two outs. His DP was traditional, 3-6-1, because the batter-runner had not legged out the bunt, figuring it to be caught.
The more important question here is, why did any of the runners leave their base? The likely scenario in any play like this is that the first throw goes to 2nd base. That would have forced the runner on 1st, allowing the runner on 2nd to remain on 2nd safely and the batter to reach safely (assuming he runs it out). Just treat it like an infield fly and stay put. At worst, the defender is hyper aware and throws to 3rd first and they get a double play anyway but that would require some next level forward thinking from all 4 infielders. You gain nothing from leaving your base in that situation.
This was just a perfect storm of great awareness by a fielder, horrible awareness by the base runners and a tough break on a batted ball. I don’t see any way to amend the current rule or write a new rule to “fix” it and this can’t possibly happen enough to justify rule changes. Just keep the current rule as is: if a fielder catches and then drops a ball to induce a double play, call it an out and a dead ball. I certainly don’t want umpires being responsible for a split second decision about a fielder’s intent.
Because if Gonzalez stays on 2B he could have been tagged out by Zobrist who could then step on 2B for the DP, no? Gonzalez forced Zobrist to make a tougher play by leaving. Also if Zobrist had thrown it into the stands or into the dugout he could have scored.