POLL: Prince Fielder and a Hit-By-Pitch

by
October 9, 2013

Prince Fielder ranks 12th among active players in hit-by-pitches, and you can spare us all the fat jokes because Reed Johnson ranks fifth. There are guys for whom getting hit is basically a skill, and this seems to be the case for Fielder, as he’s happy to find another way to reach base. Some of the balls that’ve hit him have hit him in the back. Some of the balls that’ve hit him have hit him in the butt. Some of the balls that’ve hit him have hit him in the elbow. Bringing us to a Prince Fielder HBP on Tuesday.

Fielder led off the bottom of the second inning against Dan Straily, and after falling behind 0-and-2, he got drilled by a fastball that ran up and in. The next guy struck out and the guy after that hit into a double play, so what happened to Fielder hardly mattered in the end, but this nevertheless seems like an excellent opportunity to gauge reader opinion on something.

Here’s the pitch:

clip1008.gif.opt

An excerpt from the ensuing conversation on TBS:

Eckersley: That ball’s not that far inside, he almost throws his elbow at it. You see, Prince — he did. He could have got out of the way of that ball, but, might as well just take it there. Get something going for Detroit, it doesn’t matter how you do it.

Martinez: Yeah, he had plenty of opportunity to get out of the way of that. He knew what he was doing. He needed to get on base and get something going.

An excerpt from baseball’s official rules:

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 —
[…]
(b) He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (1) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (2) 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.

This is a rule lots of people know about, but it’s also a rule that’s almost never ever enforced. When it is enforced, it seems arbitrary, like the umpire’s involving himself just for the sake of involving himself. I wish the rule were enforced, and after Fielder got hit I expressed as much on Twitter. Then someone responded with a question I hadn’t thought about before: why is this a rule? Why should there need to be an attempt to avoid? Obviously there needs to be some kind of rule to prevent strikes from being hit-by-pitches, and to prevent hitters from getting in the way on purpose, but there’s a difference between trying to get hit and trying to not get hit. In this case, it looks like Fielder kind of dropped his elbow in the path, but that pitch was at least going to hit his jersey had he not moved. He didn’t move, and by the letter of the law that should’ve just been a ball, but. But, now I’m thinking about this a lot, and I wanted to get an idea of reader opinion. So there is a poll right here!





 

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.

78 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scott
10 years ago

I don’t think that is as bad as Victorino late in last night’s game. However given the amount of pain Victorino looked to be in, I doubt it he tried to get hit. It was more a product of his standing over the plate with his arms in the strike zone.

1
Bob
10 years ago
Reply to  Scott

Agree – can we get a GIF of the Victorino one? I remember thinking that his swing motion put him in the path of the ball, and I think this happens fairly often – a batter naturally starts the swing motion and gets plunked when his arms/elbow move out further over the plate than they were prior to the start of the swing. Those are the situations that frustrate me, as I don’t think they should entitle the batter to a base since the ball wouldn’t have hit them had they not actually moved into the path of the ball. Moreover, this understandably is more likely to happen to a batter who crowds the plate.

1
Jeff Sullivanmember
10 years ago
Reply to  Bob

Victorino post is in the works

1
Giant Kidney Bean
10 years ago
Reply to  Jeff Sullivan

Need a post about the impact of gravitational pull. Fielder should be given some slack on account of his higher gravitational force on the moving baseball.

2
MustBunique
10 years ago
Reply to  Bob

I agree Victorino should be looked at. I disagree with your logic. If a batter begins his swing motion before recognizing that the pitch will hit him and then the momentum of starting his swing carries him into the pitch he should not have to take a ball instead of a HBP. That’s similar to saying any batter who begins to swing at a pitched ball and does not make contact regardless of completing his swing or not should be charged a strike regardless of pitch location because he bagan his swing. I really think it boils down to intent and the umpire’s interpretation of the batter’s intent. A player who begins his swing may or may not intend to be struck by a pitch, but beginning his swing should not be the determining factor.

0
Barves
10 years ago
Reply to  MustBunique

Against the blue jays this year Victorino got hit by a pitch that pitchtracks showed in the strike zone.

0
Bob
10 years ago
Reply to  MustBunique

I don’t understand how my point relates to the scenario you describe. My point is that when the batter’s movement post-pitch (taking him closer to the strike zone and often out of the batter’s box) is directly responsible for him getting hit, that doesn’t seem like something that should earn the batter first base. You could even say that’s rewarding the batter for misjudging an inside pitch. How is that “similar to saying any batter who begins to swing at a pitched ball and does not make contact regardless of completing his swing or not should be charged a strike regardless of pitch location because he began his swing.” Those scenarios – checked swings – have their own rules governing them and are evaluated on a case-by-case basis. Some are very close and difficult to judge even with slow-mo replays, others are clear-cut one way or the other. I’m suggesting that perhaps HBPs should be treated similarly rather than how they are today, with pretty much any and every plunk or graze earning the hitter a free pass to first. It’s one thing to get beaned in the back. It’s another to not move away from a ball that’s actually in the strike zone. And it’s yet another to get hit when starting a swing takes you into that grey area between the strike zone and batter’s box.

0
MustBunique
10 years ago
Reply to  MustBunique

Bob, what you have described in your second post is different than the way you described your opinion in your first post, and I tend to agree with your notion for treating each instance on a case-by-case basis subject to appeal. I also agree that players that intentionally move into a pitch should be given a ball, not a HBP. My reply was simply to point out that a player’s intent should not be tied to, “a batter naturally starts the swing motion.”

0