Let’s Take Check Swings Away From Home Plate Umpires
Of late, Major League Baseball has been fairly aggressive in adopting new rules to attempt to improve the game. We have instant replay now, at least for some plays and some calls. Runners aren’t allowed to run over catchers at home plate anymore. The league is even experimenting with a pitch clock in the Arizona Fall League, which could eventually lead to a reduction in the amount of time that pitchers are allowed to stand around doing nothing. The game is great, but it can still be improved upon, and I’m glad to see MLB working to try and continually make it better.
And after what we’ve seen in the playoffs over the last week, I think it’s time for Major League Baseball to consider another rule change. It’s time to officially take check-swing strike calls away from the home plate umpire.
Last night, we saw an egregious example of why this call just doesn’t need to be made by the guy behind the plate. In the 9th inning, Santiago Casilla threw a 1-2 curveball to Ian Desmond. Desmond did this.
Hunter Wendelstedt rang Desmond up, ending the at-bat, and putting the Nationals one out away from elimination. Desmond, predictably, reacted, because that’s a very borderline check-swing to get called out on, but also, because Wendelstedt didn’t even bother to ask the first base umpire for assistance on the call. Maybe you think that Desmond swung, but there is no way to think that the swing is so clear cut that the home plate umpire should make that determination without even checking down to first base.
This isn’t the first time this has happened in the postseason either. Last week, Paul Nauert decided to ring up Erick Aybar on this swing.
Like with Desmond, Aybar was batting with his team down a run in their last at-bat, and Nauert’s call struck him out on a swing that does not look like a swing. Here is Mike Scioscia’s reaction to the call.
Check swing decisions are about as subjective as anything in baseball gets, but again, how do you not at least check with the third base umpire before making that call? Is there any way to defend the position that Aybar so clearly swung that the home plate umpire could make that call without assistance?
I don’t think so, and I’m not sure home plate umpires need to be making these calls to begin with. On nearly every inconclusive check swing, it is standard operating procedure to let the base umpire make the decision anyway, so why not just codify that into the rules? Why give the home plate umpire the right to insert himself into the decision whenever he likes, when it is widely accepted that the base umpires have the better angle and are in a better position to make the swing-or-not determination?
The appeal to the base umpire is already in practice on a vast majority of check swings anyway, so officially giving this decision to the umpire down the opposite line from the batter wouldn’t slow the game down in any appreciable way. It takes a second or two for the base umpire to make the decision, and when a home plate umpire rings up a batter on a check-swing strike, we usually get an argument at the plate that lasts longer anyway.
MLB brings in two extra umpires for the postseason to try and make sure they have as many angles as possible covered for big games. We have instant replay now, as the league is trying to cut down on the number of times human error contributes significantly to the outcome of a game. There just isn’t any real reason why home plate umpires need to be making check swing decisions in the 2014 postseason, and I’m not sure I can think of a reason why they ever really need to make one.
Maybe Aybar and Desmond both would have been called out by the base umpire as well. We don’t know, because neither Hunter Wendelstedt or Paul Nauert asked for help, but it’s possible, and as long as we have human beings subjectively deciding whether a batter crossed some invisible line of demarcation, we’re going to have check-swing controversies.
But on essentially every other play in baseball, the umpire with the best angle owns the right to make the call. The home plate umpire does not have the best angle to determine whether a check swing went too far or not. He shouldn’t have the right to take that call away from the base umpire whenever he wants. Let’s officially make this the base umpire’s call. It’s what he’s there for.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.
If it were for me, I would take balls and strikes away from them too.
came just to say the same thing.
I’m an umpire, and I agree with this 100%. I cannot stand when a plate ump takes over that call if it’s even remotely ambiguous. Especially when there aren’t two strikes, because the only defensible reason I can even come up with is to make the call more quickly so the batter has a chance to run out a dropped 3rd strike.
Agreed, I’ve umped in the past and I’ll say that judging whether a batter checked his swing from behind the plate is a complete crapshoot. Hell, even judging it from the baselines is difficult – but it’s a much better vantage point. I was wondering at the beginning of the season why check swings were left out of the realm of challengeable calls?
“I was wondering at the beginning of the season why check swings were left out of the realm of challengeable calls?”
I’m guessing it’s because the rule is so poorly written. IIRC, “checked swing” isn’t even defined in the book, so what would they be looking for?
IIRC the definition is based on intent which is ridiculous. The intent is always to swing and then not to swing.
Because there’s no objective criteria for a swing – but, as an ump, you already knew that.
I agree with this article, but I think it’s a shame that we NEED to make a rule change. Can’t home-plate umpires just not be assholes and check with the guy who had a better view?
Agree…except there is one exception. Lets say, there’s a runner on 2nd and the batter check swings at a ball in the dirt on an 0-2 count and takes off for 1st. The runner on 2nd simultaneously takes off for 3rd. The catcher picks up the ball and has a 50-50 play on the runner going to 3rd, but a 99% play on the runner going to first. The catcher needs to know immediately if the batter swung (for strike 3 and therefore he could throw to first for the sure out) or if he checked (for ball 1, and therefore he should throw to third to try for the only available out on the play).
Again, I strongly agree that home plate umps should go to the 1st/3rd base umps most of the time, but there are certainly situations where the home plate ump might need to make the call.
That’s quite a scenario, but one depending on the catcher to hang onto the ball in the dirt. The appeal would have to go out the window to be sure, but if the rule changes, the 1st/3rd base ump needs to make the call quickly, without waiting for the home plate ump to point to him.
If nothing else, hitters should be able to appeal calls like that.
Totally agree. Makes no sense to me why catchers/pitchers can appeal but hitters can’t.
I’m pretty sure they can’t. Only the HP ump can actually ask for help. Catchers just do it to (1) get the HP ump to ask and/or (2) get the base ump to react and force the HP ump’s hand. But the HP ump does not HAVE to ask for help simply because the catcher has appealed.
When I was an umpire, we were told that we *must* always appeal a swing if the catcher asked. (Our chief was a former minor league ump.) The passage of time being what it is, I can’t recall whether it was because the rules dictated it (and I can’t find that rule) or if it was because it was a terrible idea to refuse an appeal and we’d appear to be making arbitrary decisions.
A corner base umpire is not supposed to make an appeal decision unless asked for by the home plate umpire but the home plate umpire is supposed to allow appeals from either the manager or catcher
Rule 9.02(c) Comment: The manager or the catcher may request the plate umpire to ask his partner for help on a half swing when the plate umpire calls the pitch a ball, but not when the pitch is called a strike. The manager may not complain that the umpire made an improper call, but only that he did not ask his partner for help. Field umpires must be alerted to the request from the plate umpire and quickly respond. Managers may not protest the call of a ball or strike on the pretense they are asking for information about a half swing.
Appeals on a half swing may be made only on the call of ball and when asked to appeal, the home plate umpire must refer to a base umpire for his judgment on the half swing. Should the base umpire call the pitch a strike, the strike call shall prevail.
If the home plate umpire thinks its a checked swing, he doesn’t react. Unless it’s ball 4, there’s not really any call being made by the umpire on a ball. Arguably, by looking to the 1B/3B umpire, the catcher is asking for an initial decision to be made on the check swing.
On the other hand, if the home plate umpire calls a strike, he’s made a very clear call on the check swing. And if the hitter is appealing to the 1B/3B umpire, he’s really asking the guy to overturn a call already made by another umpire. So that’s why I don’t think you see that happen (Adrian Beltre aside).
Adrian Beltre does it every time.
Adrian Beltre has cred…:)
Beltre is a lunatic. He appeals to the base ump when the home plate ump calls it a checked-swing ball. He basically asks for a strike call on himself.
Gotz to keep yo hands off his head as well cause he goes nuts. What a player though. He has really turned it up a notch since that one year in Boston.
…you will never convince me that Adrian Beltre isn’t beautiful and his lunacy is just more beautiful…even his weird s**t with his head
I think the best solution would be to have the home plate umpire make the call so that in the event of needing a quick call (dropped third strike) the batter can run. However, someone from the defensive team (catcher/pitcher/manager) and someone from the offensive team (batter/manager) should be allowed to appeal and the appropriate based umpire can overrule.
I don’t think the problem is the rule. I think the problem is the home plate umpire’s ego.
Really?? Talk about small sample size. Let’s change the rules everytime a marginally questionable call is made?? (in this case two clear swings, both players hands ended up in front of the plate) I always wonder why on a site like fangraphs, immersed in a ton of nuanced statistical info, that we read this type of article calling for change when this type of change would have such a microscopic impact. (no, I don’t have data to back that up) I feel better though.
Just because this article used two examples doesn’t mean the sample size is two.
Besides, it’s fair to discuss because MLB has previously made rule changes based on small samples when the samples are profile. The changes to the rules about catchers blocking the plate, for example, were basically made on account of a single play.
That should say “…when the samples are HIGH profile.”
If someone makes a comment on fangraphs that’s not supported by reams of data, it just doesn’t count, now does it. Make up your mind, reactionary to TWO instances in the postseason or is it really a large problem??
Do problems have to be large to be corrected? A little stain on my favorite shirt doesn’t mean it’s not my favorite shirt anymore, but it probably would be better without the stain. Baseball is great, but it’s probably better without plate umpire ego calling checked swings.
“Make up your mind, reactionary to TWO instances in the postseason or is it really a large problem??”
First of all, I wasn’t really attempting to make up anyone’s mind about anything. I was simply defending the validity of even having this discussion which you dismissed as ridiculous.
Secondly, why are those mutually exclusive? MLB has shown a past willingness to make rule changes based on smaller high profile samples, so a rule change may be reactionary based on TWO instances in the postseason. However, this is a case where a flawed process for coming to the decision may still bring the solution to what is really a large(r) problem.
I think the point is: there’s no reason it should be this way, and here are a couple of high-profile recent examples that demonstrate the bad consequences of the status quo. It’s not so much that the Desmond and Aybar situations prove anything about what’s wrong with home-plate umpires making borderline checked-swing calls, it’s that it was already evident that that’s a bad idea.
Let me guess, Cardinals fan?
The Nationals were playing the Giants.
To be fair, umps in all situations make the right call a ridiculously high percentage of the time. The whole reason there are video reviews is for the 1 to 2 calls they might have messed up in a given game. So griping about home plate umps that might muff a check swing call once in a while and suggesting a reasonable rule change (that takes a fraction of the time of replay review) seems complete reasonable to me.
The point Dave’s making is that it shouldn’t even be their call, regardless of the % of the time they may get it right. It would be like relying on base umpires to make calls at plays at home. Sure, they may get it right most of the time, but a different umpire has a better vantage point and thus would be expected to get it right a higher % of the time.
That’s… that’s not how sample sizes work. Dave isn’t trying to draw a correlation, or put a number on this, he’s just pointing out two events that went poorly and could be easily and cheaply avoided. I shouldn’t be surprised that you don’t know about sample sizes; you do post frequently about the Giants and their even-numbered guarantee.
You must be a Nats fan, enjoy the winter.
Your definition of a swing is whether the batter’s hands ended up in front of the plate? Respectfully, sir, that idea is nuts. I can think of (and have seen) many movements that could not fairly be called an intent to strike at the ball that end up with the batter’s hands in front of the plate.
My favorite, though, is when a batter twists to get out of the way of an inside pitch and as a result the bat – which has never left the batter’s shoulder comes over the plate in some fashion … and the base umpire rules “swing.” It’s clear there is no intent to swing, that the intent is to get the hell out of the way of a 90+mph missile … and the umpire rings the hitter up anyway. Crazy.
yeah, I’ve always thought the batter should get some sort of exception when he’s doing his best to avoid a pitch that could hit him
Basically this…I just wanted to say this…hands being in front of the plate means nothing in deciding whether the batter swung at the pitch…and to agree with folks below…GIF’s are great especially for those of us that can’t read-Thanks, Dave!
You’re supposed to turn towards the umpire when trying to get out of the way of an inside pitch, rather than turning towards the pitcher. The only reason to turn towards the pitcher is if you started your swing already, in which case I don’t see the problem with saying the hitter swung.
You are saying you don’t see a difference between a batter starting his swing, and swinging? Seems to me like you can stop the former after initiating it before it becomes the latter.
Where do the rules say that a batter is supposed to turn to the umpire when trying to get out of the way of an inside pitch? That would be some crazy micromanaging on the part of baseball’s rule book if it’s specifying how batters should react to a 90mph pitch coming at them.
These two examples are not the only examples. It happens all the time during the regular season, and every time I see it it makes me more and more mad. The HP ump should not EVER make that call.
You don’t even understand what a small sample size objection is. You are just parroting things you’ve read here out of context.
He’s just arguing for the sake of arguing.
I get playing devil’s advocate, as if to bring up another perspective that hasn’t been considered. But he’s just trying to stir the pot.
Fact – its impossible for the human eye to focus on two things at the same time. The home plate umpires job is to call balls and strikes. Every inch matters in that respect. How in the world can you make a judgement call on check swings as close as those when the umpire is supposed to be focused onthe ball?Thats the whole point of the argument and is also why the base umpire should be obligated to make the call. The article is right.
Every called checked-swing I’ve ever seen looks like a swing to me. The bat is invariably over the plate and could have been hit by the ball if the ball had been in the same location.
That said, I understand that there is a convention that if the batter avoids letting the bat go past some vaguely defined line, the umpires will usually not call it a swing.
Well, the bat could be hit by the ball while still in the batter’s box with no attempt to swing. So, I think the “could have been hit by the ball” is a poor criteria.
And that Aybar swing sure doesn’t look like his bat cross the plate in anyway. If someone went through and cataloged this stuff, I’d be shocked if a “swing” like that is called for a strike more than 1/100 times.
I love the totally unnecessary/necessary Mike Scioscia reaction gif. gif’s are the best.
I, and others like me, choose GIFs!
God dammit.
love the reax from the guy to the right behind scioscia. great face.
The interesting thing is that the rules demand that the umpire ask for help when requested on a called ball and forbid it on a called strike.
“Rule 9.02(c) Comment: The manager or the catcher may request the plate umpire to ask his partner for help on a half swing when the plate umpire calls the pitch a ball, but not when the pitch is called a strike . . . .
Appeals on a half swing may be made only on the call of ball and when asked to appeal, the home plate umpire must refer to a base umpire for his judgment on the half swing.”
I’m not sure why this asymmetry exists in the rules, and until now, I hadn’t realized that it was codified. I knew it was standard practice to allow appeals on called balls, but I always thought it was discretionary. The rules say the home plate ump “must” ask for help when requested on a called ball but “may . . . not” on a called strike. Odd.
Well… if the pitch was a strike, it doesn’t actually matter at all whether the batter swung. Why would you want the possibility of a time-wasting, irrelevant appeal in that circumstance?
The way “called a ball” is used in the rule* makes entirely clear that this isn’t saying appeals must be granted when the ball is deemed out of the zone and may not be when the ball is deemed in the zone. “Called a ball” and “called a strike” here include the home plate ump’s judgment on the swing, not simply the pitch location.
*See reference to the 3rd base umpire calling a pitch a ball
The result here is basically so the defense (catcher) can ask for an appeal, but the offense (batter) can’t. Unfortunately Adrian Beltre isn’t aware of this rule when he’s batting.
I love Adrian Beltre!
Yes, that is the result.
But there isn’t really a reason why that should be the desired result.
Why should the D be able to challenge the home plate umpire’s calls but not the O? We don’t have that limitation anywhere else in baseball or in any other sport. We don’t say the D can challenge a fumble call but the O can’t. It is a rule in search of a reason.
You’re right about the language of the official comment indicating that calling a check swing is calling “the pitch” a strike.
At this point, all that seems to be justifying it is the idea that if the base umpire says a guy didn’t swing after the home plate umpire said he did, he’s overruling his colleague–a no-no–whereas if the base ump says the batter did swing after the home-plate umpire ruled the pitch a ball, the base umpire is merely filling in a gap. But that can’t be right–under the current system, the home-plate umpire’s duty is to call a swing if he sees it. If he calls a ball, that embeds a judgment that the batter did not swing, a judgment that the base umpire is then allowed to overrule.
So all that to say that I agree that there is no good reason for this asymmetry.
Yes, please. This is an easy, straightforward change that MLB should be jumping on immediately.
I would take it a step further, and make clear what is a check swing and what is not. It should not be hard to make a definitive line here. Whether you want to go with “breaking” the wrists, or the bat head coming in front of the body and/or plate. I don’t understand why the rule is ambiguous.
Which is what this article should have actually been about (assuming there was any reason whatsoever to write so god damned many words about checked swings of all things). As the rule stands, taking it away from the home plate umpire is meaningless because all of the swing criteria that get bitched about all the time are imaginary.
Agreed. Define the rule. Even if umps are going to subjectively read it different, at least they’ll be attempting to follow a guideline.
I’d be very forgiving in this regard though. Given the fraction of time the batter actually has to react to be able to stop a swing, anything that even remotely keeps the bat from possibly hitting the ball should be a non-swing imo.
Exactly. This is the entire discussion. A swing needs to be defined. Period. Announcers have perpetuated the myth that it’s if the wrists break, or if the bat goes over or in front of the plate, etc. This is not true – it is not defined in the rules.
There isn’t a reason for the umpire to not check down the baseline on that call other than ego
You mean aside from the fact that there are no criteria that give a judgment advantage to one over the other?
Other than the criterion of “Gee that other guy probably saw that MUCH more clearly than I did!”
But other than that one small distinction, sure.
I disagree. I think Dave’s correct that the rule change is needed but if the ball gets away from the catcher on a called strike 3, the batter may need a quick decision in order to know whether or not to run to first.
If he runs to first automatically, he conceding the strike call when he probably doesn’t think he swung. Regardless, while ego may be involved in some of the calls — and maybe even most — I don’t agree that it’s the only reason for the home plate umpire not asking for help.
Neither of those are swings and like Scioscia (Maybe Matt Williams too, I can’t see the inning) I probably would have gotten myself kick out of the game after those because that is ludicrous to not check. I understand there’s a lot of egos in Baseball but the umpires have to realize, we don’t pay to see them screw over the players.
The part I’ve never understood was why when the ump calls it a ball [suggesting that they didn’t see it as a ‘full’ swing], the other umpires are only to give their opinion if prompted. Why is this? Shouldn’t the base umpires be free to give their opinion whether the catcher prompts the home plate umpire to ask or not?
You’re correct IMO, but since umpires protect each others’ ego, they’d never do such a thing. Perhaps at the root of crappy umpire traditions.
If we truly cared about protecting ego, we wouldn’t allow manager or catcher initiated appeals at all.
As someone said above, the appeal is not even discretionary, it is a matter of right when the home plate ump says no swing. It’s only when the ump says swing that there is no mechanism for appeal.
>If we truly cared about protecting ego, we wouldn’t allow manager or catcher initiated appeals at all.
They tried cutting down on allowing that at the start of 2012 or 2013 and there were a bunch of times when the catcher tried to get the appeal and it was ignored. Eventually they went back to the old way.
It’s out of practicality, and ownership of who makes the call. If umpires could just toss in their two cents whenever they felt like, it would be absolute chaos, and would lead to infinite arguments.
A checked swing is the home ump’s call, until he decides to ask for help. Which he should. But the help must be requested, not foisted upon.
I totally agree. And I also totally love seeing Scioscia mad.
I would prefer to make this part of stricter regime of umpire grading, just like strike zone judgement. Do video review and score umpires systematically on their performance, letting only the best of them work playoff and all-star games and earn bonuses for that while the worst are graded out and replaced. That to me would be better than a rule change taking it out of the home plate ump’s hands entirely.
BTW that call last night was absolutely horrible and I’m a Giants fan.
Ditto here. It was a great game and the outcome I wanted, but if I was Desmond I would feel absolutely robbed. I agree with the rule change completely.
You think they don’t already do this? They just pick random umpires for the playoffs?
Whatever umpire grading is done currently, I won’t trust it until MLB provides transparency on both the criteria they use and how individual umpires are scored, so that Fangraphs or anyone else armed with the same data can track the grades along with them to make sure there is some accountability. As long as that remains a black box then MLB might as well just pick the umps at random in terms of how much confidence anyone should have that there’s actually any meritocracy involved.
If you think they do, you’ll have to explain why Joe West was working.
I was thinking the same thing on both of these occasions. I also agree that it should be defined what constitutes as a swing and what does not. Also, let PitchF/X call balls and strikes ;).
Cameron, why don’t you just go full time over at Faux Sports?
You zinged that whole organization yet AGAIN!1!! HAHAHAHA great job bro!
Warmest regards,
Nobama
“The home plate umpire does not have the best angle to determine whether a check swing went too far or not”
I generally agree with this and agree with the article as a whole. It’s fair to point out, however, that whether a batter swung is not necessarily based on whether “a check swing went too far or not.” The rules are very ambiguous about whether or not a guy “went” or not, and typically depend on a blend of factors – how far the swing went, yes, but also whether the batter pulls his wrists back, whether his wrists roll over, or simply whether the ump feels like he offered at the pitch. I hate this kind of ambiguity in the law – it leads to unpredictable and/or whimsical decisions – but it does make Wendelstedt’s call slightly more justifiable.
It seems to me that if the bat goes past a 90 degree angle (ie parallel to the pitching rubber) they call it a swing, otherwise they don’t (usually). Not sure if that’s the best way to judge it but they do seem to be fairly consistent with calling it like that, and it’s a black and white thing to judge.
“[I]t is widely accepted that the base umpires have the better angle and are in a better position to make the swing-or-not determination?”
That’s not true. You’ve misunderstood what the appeal is. It’s not an opportunity to countermand the plate umpire – it’s an opportunity to rebut the presumption of a non-swing. The base umpire is not making a swing-or-not determination – he’s making a swing-or-presume-no-swing determination. He never says “the batter did not swing”, rather he says “I cannot determine that he swung.” The distinction is that any doubt benefits the batter. It’s the difference between “not guilty” and “innocent”.
Second, the base umpire does not have the best angle on all swings – he’s 100 feet away and is obliquely angled. His only real advantage is that he usually has fewer distractions than the plate umpire. He’s a complementary angle, rather than a better angle. This is why he only serves as a backup to the plate umpire when the plate umpire did not see a swing – he’s there to consider a rebut of the presumption of a non-swing, not countermand the plate umpire’s decision.
The confusion lies in the fact that baseball uses the word “appeal” differently from the courts. In baseball, an appeal is an attempt to rebut a presumption (rebutting that the batter did not swing, or rebutting that a runner did not leave early). It is not an attempt to reconsider a call – that is called a “conference”,”review”, or “challenge”.
This is all confused by the fact that there’s no objective criteria about what constitutes a swing.
The base umpire doesn’t always get it right – sure, taking the decision away from the plate umpire might result in fewer erroneous strikes, but it will result in more erroneous balls.
Every sport has questionable calls like these where maybe the call was right or maybe it was wrong, but one official decided to determine the outcome of an incredibly important event without taking the allowed opportunity to consult his peers and come to a more thought-out conclusion.
This is infuriating to me as a fan and I can not imagine how it would feel to be the athlete. Situations like these make me realize how remarkably restrained most athletes are. If I were Desmond or Aybar I would have thrown many things and then proceeded to sit on home plate until someone picked me up and moved me. Yes, I am immature. No this post did not have anything to do with stats.
Is it just me, or were there a lot more occasions of that “you went around” call by plate umps in those last week of postseason play compared to the regular season? I’ve seen games recently where EVERY single checked swing was called by the plate ump without even taking a glance at first or third. I’ve never seen such a high percentage of “Don’t even bother pointing to him, I got it!”
Regardless of the outcome, which, of course, went horribly wrong in the two examples posted above, I’d really like to see more cooperation between the umps and less one-man-show stuff…
I actually noticed more of them all year long.
This was just part of the new pace-of-game initiative – all pitches are strikes.
I don’t think Scioscia’s reacting there to the check swing. I think Trout farted in the dugout.
Hunter Wendelstedt was horrible all night (as he has been his hole umpiring life, which makes me continue to question how he, like so many others, still has a job)…Also, I thought the pitch has to hit you in the face for it to be considered a swing…
Ouch, that one hurts. I mean, not as much as that other thing, but still hurts.
The rule is for it to be constituted as a swing, the hitter must make an attempt at the ball. If they call those an attempt at the ball, then I honestly dont know what a swing is, and this is something I’ve had a problem with for years. The problem is that we dont seem to have any definitive understanding of what a swing is, at least the umpires dont, b/c these things are always called one way and then a different way the next time. Its just like the instant replay situation, and the blocking the plate rule. We need a clear definition, apparently, of what clear and conclusive means b/c it doesnt seem like the actual meaning everyone thought it was, is the definition being used in NY
Clarify the rule, make it reviewable, allow for a challenge after the seventh inning if the result is strike three, whether or not the team has any challenges left. These should be quick decisions to make, because there is always a clear angle of the swing.
We track checked swings. There were over 19,000 this season. We note if there was a bad call, but only on an AB-ending check swing. Here’s the list for 2014:
Players who checked their swing but were rung up for strikeout:
Erick Aybar
Alejandro De Aza
Jason Heyward
Chris Iannetta
Ian Kinsler
John McDonald
Jose Reyes
Giancarlo Stanton
Players who went around but were granted a base on balls:
Nolan Arenado
Kendrys Morales
Yangervis Solarte
Note: that was regular season only. Desmond should be added to the list.