The Final Play of Last Night’s Braves Game
With two outs in the bottom of the ninth inning of last night’s game between the Braves and Phillies, the visiting Phillies were holding on to a two-run lead. Dansby Swanson stood on first base with Adeiny Hechavarría on second. Freddie Freeman was facing off against new Phillies acquisition Brandon Workman. In terms of compelling endings, this is pretty close to what you hope for. One of the better hitters in the game had a chance to hit a walk-off home run to end the game, while making an out would mean victory for the other side. Freeman did get a hit, pushing a double into the gap, but the game ended when Swanson was thrown out at home trying to score the tying run. The play, already compelling given the game state, was made more interesting by two factors:
- Andrew Knapp might have blocked the plate in violation of the rules designed to prevent collisions at home.
- Swanson decided to try to score the tying run on the play, but made the final out instead.
Before getting to the collision rule and whether Knapp was where he shouldn’t have been, let’s first consider Swanson’s decision to attempt to score from first base. While Freeman hit the ball pretty far, it was cut off by Roman Quinn. One of the fastest runners in the game, Quinn got to the ball in the gap before left fielder Andrew McCutchen. While McCutchen’s arm strength isn’t terrible, it isn’t much more than average, while Quinn has thrown an easy 87 mph pitch from the mound, and made this throw earlier this month:
Last night, Quinn made a strong, accurate throw to Didi Gregorius, who then made a bouncing throw to the plate. The throw arrived just in time to get Swanson. As for whether Swanson should have tried to score, the decision is actually a fairly easy one. Here’s the win expectancy chart for Swanson’s decision, with the numbers coming via our WPA inquirer:
| Decision | Run Differential | Leverage Index | Braves Win Exp. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Stays at Third | -1 | 8.28 | 24.20% |
| Scores | 0 | 4.65 | 62.70% |
If Swanson stays on third, the Braves have about a one-in-four shot at winning the game as they still need another hit — or a wild pitch or an error — to score a run and tie the game. If Swanson makes it home safely and Freeman ends up standing on third base as the potential winning run, the Braves have a 62.7% chance of winning the game. If Swanson decides to try to make it home, he risks losing 24.2% in win expectancy should he make an out, versus gaining 38.5% in win expectancy if he is safe. That means Swanson should try for home if he believes he has a 39% chance of being safe. That’s a pretty low threshold to make running worth it. Here’s where Swanson was while rounding third — note that Gregorius is nearly out of the frame as he gets the throw from Quinn:
With Gregorius 150 feet or more away from the plate, any hiccup in his catch, or a throw that ends up a little up the line or that sails slightly, would have allowed Swanson to make it home. Only needing to believe he’d make it home safely with 39% confidence, Swanson’s decision was a good one, despite the result. (On the broadcast, Alex Rodriguez noted that he would have been helped by a larger secondary lead with the first baseman playing behind him.)
As for Knapp’s play at the plate, here’s a quick reminder of the rule in question:
Unless the catcher is in possession of the ball, the catcher cannot block the pathway of the runner as he is attempting to score. If, in the judgment of the umpire, the catcher without possession of the ball blocks the pathway of the runner, the umpire shall call or signal the runner safe. Not withstanding the above, it shall not be considered a violation of this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder). In addition, a catcher without possession of the ball shall not be adjudged to violate this Rule 6.01(i)(2) if the runner could have avoided the collision with the catcher (or other player covering home plate) by sliding.
And while not directly applicable in this case, the comment to the rule provides further clarity about the conditions necessary for violation of it:
A catcher shall not be deemed to have violated Rule 6.01(i)(2) unless he has both blocked the plate without possession the ball (or when not in a legitimate attempt to field the throw), and also hindered or impeded the progress of the runner attempting to score. A catcher shall not be deemed to have hindered or impeded the progress of the runner if, in the judgment of the umpire, the runner would have been called out notwithstanding the catcher having blocked the plate.
The play on the field was reviewed and Knapp was deemed not to have violated the rule. The umpires pretty clearly got the call right. Here’s a screenshot of where Knapp was standing as the ball was coming in:
Knapp is standing in front of the plate, and Swanson has a direct path to it. For completeness’ sake, here’s another angle:
Again, Knapp in front of the plate, and Swanson has a clear path to home. Brian Snitker took issue with the play after the game, saying:
He was sitting there pretty good, but they’re not calling that anymore. They need to take that off the book and just start blowing up catchers again.
Perhaps the comment was just the heat of the moment after losing a tough game making itself known. Maybe that call is being made less, but a lot of that likely has to do with compliance with the rule. We haven’t had many notable collisions at home since the rule was enacted, and if an umpire can determine that the runner would have been out even if the catcher hadn’t been blocking the plate, there aren’t a lot of calls to be made in that arena. Blowing up catchers would be a terrible idea — the rule has legitimately changed behavior to create a safer game. In any event, Knapp wasn’t blocking the plate before the ball arrived, though he obviously moved in front of the plate to field the throw as we see below:
Knapp moved into Swanson’s path to field the ball, which is definitely within the rules.
In the end, Swanson made the correct decision to try to make it home, even if he was out. Knapp followed the appropriate collision rules, even if he ended up between Swanson and home plate. It was an exciting ending to a good game, and the decisions by Swanson, Knapp, and the umpires should be without controversy, even if Snitker’s comments raise some eyebrows.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
As a Braves fan, I think you make excellent points! Thanks
As a Braves fan I just couldn’t find the gall to get upset given that for the past 2-3 years the “blocking the plate” rule has basically never been called (and this wasn’t even a good example of clear plate blocking, and there are many). The only thing I was upset about was that Knapp managed to hold onto the ball.
Great discussion. I also commend the positioning of home plate umpire Roberto Ortiz, who was in great position to see up the line prior to the throw arriving and then swung around to get an angle on the tab.
LOVE the WPA stats and the explanation of why Dansby was sent/decided to try for home…FWIW, I was yelling “Send him” from basically the crack of the bat knowing both Dansby’s elite speed AND knowing (even without the numbers) that scoring now is almost always better than waiting to score later.
All of that said, I have to disagree with “The umpires pretty clearly got the call right.”; I’m not saying they definitely did OR didn’t, but I am 100% challenging the notion that the call was “clear” in any way. In fact, I think by the letter of the rule, he should have almost certainly be called “safe”, as the effort he made to “catch” the ball appears to clearly involve him doing significantly more moving/blocking than is necessary OR allowed by the rule. For the record, this is a very clunky rule, and poorly written; I think it’s pretty obvious it was written with catchers and their protection in mind (which I support 100%), but with much less care for how to enable both the catcher AND the runner the maximum opportunity to make the best play, and to do so safely.
Tl;dr: 1. Enjoyed the article.
2. The rule needs to be clearer.
3. The call was NOT obvious either way
4. I think the case for “blocking” and “safe” is stronger than the case for “out”, particularly with the poor wording of the rule, but I do keep #3 in mind.
Sorry, don’t see how the play is close to illegal. Ball is caught just inside the catcher’s left knee a couple of feet outside the foul line, and he did not move toward his left until fielding the ball. I don’t see that he has not moved any more than is reasonable to catch OR block the ball if he misses it.
There’s a great screencap of the split second before Knapp actually catches the ball: ball is still in the air, he has already slid into the running lane, and his knee is already down blocking Swanson’s path. Basically he did all of that while letting the ball travel across his body, but before actually ‘making a play’ to catch it. Per my read of the rule, including the clarification paragraph, he shouldn’t have been allowed to do all of that, at least not until he actually has the ball in his possession. Again, goes back to a bad rule to begin with…but I’m just not seeing how the rule gives him the right to do all of that before the ball has even arrived. Also, you don’t catch the ball with your glove tucked between your legs and your entire body behind it, that’s an entirely different action, I would say.
Link to the screenshot and my quick analysis, if anyone cares: https://twitter.com/scooter0011/status/1297741125411835904?s=20
Serious homer take. You expect Knapp to time his attempt to both catch and block the ball with such precision that it’s impervious to your Zapruder screenshot analysis, hundredths of a second before the tag? Come on.
No, I expect Knapp to catch the ball with his glove, not his crotch. By the way, if your argument is that he is “blocking” the ball, then, by definition, you are acknowledging that he “blocked” the plate as well, due to the location of the throw. So now our only beef is whether the rule does or doesn’t allow him to do so; I get the take that you, and many others, say that it does…I just don’t see that in the rule anywhere myself. I see provisions for catching the ball, prohibitions for blocking the bag/plate, and, apparently, a grey area between those two actions, “catching” and “blocking”.
You may not understand how catchers operate, then.
Obviously, blocking the ball is part of a “legitimate attempt to field the throw,” so the rule definitely still applies.
Uh, you did not read the rule. Not illegal “if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in a legitimate attempt to field the throw (e.g., in reaction to the direction, trajectory or the hop of the incoming throw, or in reaction to a throw that originates from a pitcher or drawn-in infielder).” He has blocked the path, but quite clearly and indisputably to “field the throw” and “in reaction to the direction” and “trajectory” and “hop” of “the incoming throw.” The rule addresses this specific situation and does not require waiting until the throw “arrives” to move. If so, there would be no need for this exception, as a fielder would never be in the path without the ball (the other exception).
I don’t understand your “ball travel across his body” comment. The ball was caught in front of his body, from left field.
By your definition, if a baserunner ran into an infielder who was waiting for an incoming ground ball or an incoming throw, there would be no interference because the ball had not yet arrived and therefore the infielder was not “making a play.” I hope you agree that’s silly.
Easiest way I know to answer you is this: I do not believe “blocking the baseline/plate/bag in anticipation of or in response to a bad throw” is the same thing as “making a play” or “fielding a throw”. Gloves go on your hand; not on your shinguard, or chest protector, or between your legs. Knapp did not have to arrive early, body in the baseline, to catch the ball, period; and since it was not necessary, AND it broke the first half of the rule, I just don’t see how it would be perceived as a legal play. The rule should give EQUAL protection to both catcher and runner, and making this call seems to send the clear message that the catcher gets priority and the runner has less protection/ability to perform under it.
Where in the rules does it ever say that only a glove can be used to “field”? If that were true, you’d never see fielders attempt to make a barehanded grab, make a kick save, or otherwise directly use their bodies in defensive play. Only by throwing your glove or using other equipment such as your cap is such defense illegal.
Yes, it was necessary to move his body to block the ball if nothing else, otherwise he risked the ball skipping off his glove and going to the backstop.
How is that not, “in a legitimate attempt to field the throw?”
Because Knapp’s glove is on his hand, not attached to the crotch of his pants, or the inside of his left shinguard…for starters?
Can you find a video or account of any catcher fielding a ball on the ground that way?
What, with is glove? Yeah, I suspect that’d be easy to find. If you mean in the way Knapp did, then yeah, I could probably find that too, but I’m not sure what that has to do with whether this play was made correctly or not?
Scooter, it is baseball fundamentals to get your body in front of the ball when fielding a grounder. Not doing so greatly increases your chance of erroring and allowing the ball to travel a much greater distance if you miss it. In this case, Freeman was the winning run. If Knapp would have just stuck his glove out there, he had a much greater chance of misplaying and possibly even allow Freeman to score. Again, this is fundamentals, especially for catchers. That said, if you follow the trajectory of the throw, it would have ended up hitting Knapp in the inside of his left knee if he had missed it. So, he wasn’t even fully in front of the ball when he received it. Overall, Craig was spot on in his analysis. It was a good call to send Swanson, a good throw by Straw, and a good catch-and-tag by Knapp.
“Fundamentals” are not the same thing as “rules” or what they allow. If that was the case, why wouldn’t every fielder do this at every base on every non-force play?
The other fielders usually don’t do it simply because they aren’t allowed the same defensive equipment that makes blocking balls with your body more feasible, although there are rare times that they have done so that are perfectly allowable within the rules.
It was a low bouncing throw. Catchers catch those on their knees, aiming to be central to the ball. Knapp is doing exactly that. It’s unfair to ask him to just bend, standing up, to get the low ball and tag at the same time. It’s not a play at 2nd base (and players kneel often there as well). There’s also the prevention of Freeman from scoring to be taken into account. So Knapp went on Swanson’s line in fielding the throw, and preventing it goes to the backstop. All that happened in tens-of-seconds.
If anything, Swanson should have tried jumping over Knapp, who was in no position to bring the glove up. It was a very nice tag from Knapp.
Essentially what this is saying, to me, is that Swanson is the one who gets punished for the errant (not terribly, but errant nonetheless) throw from Didi. You’re gonna have a hard time convincing me that’s how this should be adjudicated.
Also, on plays at 2nd, when a guy goes to a knee to field a ball, it is extremely rare that he is completely blocking the runner’s path to the bag. That’s why so many throws to second on steal attempts end up in CF. I know there are several factors in why the rules are different for the plate than any other base, I’m just unsure why this particular concept is one of them that should be different.
Why say errant throw? That throw was perfectly placed to get the out by forcing the catcher into the baseline. I agree with Snit. If that’s not illegal then the only option is to blow up the catcher.
The throw was errant; if that’s where Knapp wanted the ball, he would have set up there to begin with; also, literally any baseball knowledge tells you that’s not an accurate throw when it pulls a fielder up the line. (Spare me the “Didi knew the rule and threw it in such a way to exploit the rule”; that’s sillier than any other take on this entire thread.)
But thank you for making my point: the rule was specifically put in place to eliminate catchers getting blown up; if this play is legal, and the only option it leaves the runner is to blow up the catcher, then either the rule is bad and needs to be fixed, OR this isn’t proper application of the rule. I happen to think it is both.
I guess you could be right, that teams spend a huge amount of effort in defensive positioning, but wouldn’t attempt to exploit a rule by having the catcher set up in front of the dish then block the only path to the plate with a throw up the line. But it hardly seems silly. Besides if Knapp setup there to begin with as you suggest, it would have been illegal.
Scooter clearly is just having a tantrum and isn’t going to listen to reason.
They can’t feasibly eliminate the possibility of all home plate collisions without violating the overall rule that the fielder has the right of way when making a fielding play that happens to be within the baselines. That one exception always needed to be allowed, or the defense is being punished too harshly for not always being able to make perfectly accurate throws.
Um, the baserunner is always the one “punished” whenever a defensive play occurs within the baselines. In return, the fielder is the one punished if he blocks the baselines when no play is being made. That’s how it has always worked even before the home plate collision rule was added.
If you look at the video above, immediately before the ball enters Knapp’s glove (I’ve currently got it stopped at 2.08s), you can see that:
* Knapp’s right knee is on the ground, but his left knee (closer to Swanson’s path) isn’t
* Knapp’s mitt is at least even with his left knee, if not farther away from his body than his left knee.
Knapp’s left knee doesn’t touch the ground until after he’s caught the ball.
The throw was almost in the dirt, so of course he needed to move his body in advance just to make sure he blocked the ball!
What, exactly, is not clear here?
Lots of things, friend…lots of things…
Swanson should have just jumped over Knapp, easy peasy.
Should have learned from Craig Coghlan and Willie Mays Hays.
That’s Blue Jays great CHRIS Coghlan, thank you very much 😉
My bad not sure why I wrote Craig
If Didi had fired a perfect, no-hop strike to where Knapp initially set up, Swanson had a good shot of evading the tag. By throwing to the foul side of the 3rd base line, he enabled Knapp to legally “block” the plate at the very last moment, right as Swanson was diving for the plate.
True, that’s what happened, but not sure Didi meant to do that. It creates the chance of hitting the baserunner if the relay man throws outside the line (and also puts your catcher at risk of harm). Plus, do you think Didi can be that precise throwing from short left field? I kinda doubt it. 🙂
I actually think the bouncing throw was semi-on purpose. I don’t think it was an accidental spike into the ground. I think he aimed slightly into the runner’s lane and was going for one or a couple bounces so that the catcher has to go down to get it, which also happens to enable him to block the plate.
I don’t care about either team here, but I will admit I’m probably ascribing too much precision to Didi’s throw.
I’m thinking he wanted to (1) get rid of the ball quickly and (2) keep his throw down so there’s less of a chance of an error on an overthrow. Not sure about anything beyond that.
Which makes it a perfect throw.
One tidbit not mentioned: Vegas had the O/U for this game at 9.5 runs. That review won or lost a lot of money!
The rule also states “it is not a violation “‘if the catcher blocks the pathway of the runner in order to field a throw, and the umpire determines that the catcher could not have fielded the ball without blocking the pathway of the runner'”
It is pretty clear Knapp could have caught the ball without blocking the lane of the runner. He fielded it in the center of his body when he could’ve easily fielded it out to the side like you’re supposed to when making a tag.
That quote is part of the original Posey Rule but isn’t in the rules this year.
This is my entire take, in the thread above and elsewhere. If fielders do not have any responsibility to avoid blocking the runner, then yeah, this is a great play. I would just say the removal of that phrasing in the rule shouldn’t remove the concept as a consideration in the interpreting of the rule, but maybe that’s where I’m wrong.
Yes, in every interference rule, the fielder has priority to field.
Think of Turner in Game 6 of the 2019 World Series getting called out for hitting a glove stretched out into the basepath. I’m a Nats fan and I saw the logic of the call—I didn’t like it, but I get the basic rule is that fielders can field and runners go around them.
Well that would be another can of worms entirely, as I believe the Turner call was incorrect as well.
The Turner call, in a vacuum, was correct. He was where he shouldn’t have been, that was clear. The call was completely wrong, however, because the umpires did not apply it to all other home-to-first runners in the series, they chose that single instance, pulled it completely out of context, and decided only that one time to do what they did. It was arbitrary and clumsy and ruined a part of that game and series. It was everything an umpire should strive not to do. But was it technically the right call if we forget everything else we know? Sure. Context is everything, though, and so — Scooter — just like in the Braves game last night, you should not fixate on one single facet and pretend everything else does not matter. (like, there’s no other way for Knapp to field that ball. It’s really not possible for a catcher; we aren’t trained that way, we get punished for trying to glove a wide throw, etc, etc, and on and on. You’re arguing your single moment of pain should be overruling everything else about the game and its players.)
Even if was still in the rules this year, the umpire made the determination (as stated in the rules) and it was upheld upon review. If Knapp had not attempted to get in front of the ball when fielding it, it could have been a disaster for Philly. No matter how you slice it, I think everybody got it right. Unfortunately for the Braves, sometimes that’s just the way the ball bounces.
If you look at the last video embedded in the article, at the timestamps between about 1.70s (as the ball is crossing the home plate grass cutout edge) and about 2.50s (when the ball goes into Knapp’s glove), you can see that he didn’t field it in the “center of his body”; his mitt is even with or extended slightly beyond his left knee as the ball is arriving, and as he catches it he drops his left knee to the ground, with his left hand about even with his left knee (“out to the side”).
The problem wasn’t whether or not Swanson should have tried to score, the mistake he made was not getting a bigger lead off of first. The first baseman was playing back and he would have scored standing up if he had taken a better lead. They discussed it and showed it during the game right after the play.
That’s noted in the article.
It was a sidenote in parenthesis, not really addressed in this article, when it should actually have been the focus. Everything after that in the play would not have been a factor if Swanson had been paying more attention to start.
And if Swanson get’s backpicked off 1st for being halfway to second then we’re having that conversation instead…he certainly could have gotten more, but it was a mostly great play all around that just came down to split seconds; a reminder of how often the game of baseball is right on the edges of the professionals’ abilities.
Loved the framing of Swanson’s decision/result by win expectancy, Quinn’s throwing arm, and Knapp’s defensive position. These don’t come up every day but I’d love to see more of this. Unclear by the screenshot but was the 3rd base coach wheeling him in or giving him the stop sign?
It was a great baseball play and glad you brought it up. Besides the aforementioned lack of secondary lead by Swanson, to me the key to the play was Quinn’s speed in cutting off the ball and making a perfect throw to the cutoff man that he could handle already in a throwing position. That was the best play in the sequence, and a great one.
However, the decision to score or not is not one I would expect an average 3rd base coach to make on the basis of numbers and percentages to win. A good rule of thumb is that if the fielder who has the ball in his mitt and is in good position to throw to the plate (and has a decent arm) is in that position before the runner rounds third, there is a better than 50/50 chance he will get thrown out at the plate.
(I have no data to back this up other than watching this exact play hundreds of times, might be worthwhile to have someone verify that. Lots of variables (mostly accuracy and strength of throwing arm and speed of runner), but IMHO no way should a 3rd base coach send a player when the fielder is ready to throw before the runner reaches third.
While a third base coach wouldn’t think directly in percentages, they do know very well that you have to take bigger chances when the tying run is on the line in the 9th inning. It’s the same reason they send more runners when there are two outs versus no outs or one out but needing to be even more aggressive than that in a situation like this.
Also, I’m perfectly fine with the Braves announcers going full homer. Their interpretation of the rules is garbage, but their homerism was spot on.
Not me! Homers are tired and boring, and the rest of us shouldn’t have to listen to them. I gave up on the White Sox decades ago because of that corny, angry Dad “commentary.” It’s so tacky and hackneyed. I think when we finally do away with the trope of bitter, boozy old men complaining about how “we wuz robbed” in a sporting event, homerism in announcing will look even worse in hindsight.
There is still plenty of room for homerism without being as terrible as the White Sox announcers. I’ve never personally heard them, but I’ve heard that they’re generally considered to be among the worst (if not THE worst) announcers in the game.
The play was clearly legal by the rule, but I think it’s a dumb rule. My rule would say: If the catcher has to move to his left to field the ball, the impetus should be on him to move forward, out of the base path, to field it.
That doesn’t really make sense in the context of the entire game of baseball. Fielders always have priority to field. You’d change one instance and tell fielders that’s the one time they have to give way? Nonsense.
1. It does seem that this rule is no longer ever called. This was actually a good example of a ball that really was off target, but it seems as though catchers can block the plate now so long as they wait until just before the ball gets there to do so. Maybe that is just okay as standard operating procedure? Maybe there should be a rule about catchers dropping both knees down, I don’t know. Telling base runners they have to slide and then letting catchers hit them with their knees seems like it could cause injury.
2. One of the weird things about baserunning value is that it judges runners on their decision making when trying to score from second or first when in fact they are (and should be!) just listening to the third base coach. Ron Washington made that decision. In hindsight, it would have perhaps been wise for the on deck player to be telling Swanson to take an inside line to the plate. If he had, the ball would have likely hit him or it would have been ever tougher to make the catch. The catch/tag by Knapp was amazing, but Swanson’s wide slide made it easier.
3. I simply don’t see the secondary lead problem and chalked that up to Arod not quite having met his quota for saying stupid things yet and squeezing that one in under the buzzer. To suggest that any runner, but especially one with a good reputation for base running, is not getting the appropriate lead in that situation and using a dubious replay to back up that assertion, well it makes no sense. And remember, Arod is not there. He’s not getting any better of a picture. Swanson looks as far off the base or maybe a step farther than the first baseman is at contact. Absent something far more compelling in terms of evidence, it’s hard to take Arod seriously. If his lead were so bad, how did he almost score on a ball that never even really got past the outfielders?
Great analysis
1. He absolutely had to run. 100%. A series of three perfect plays had to happen to get him and they did
2. He was clearly out and there is no credible reading of that rule that would say otherwise
And let me say, this is why I hate replay. If you are in the ballpark, you don’t want this going to replay. Why go to the game if every game has suspended animation after every close play.
Well done Craig – really clear high level analysis
Knapp didn’t field that cleanly. Knapp fielded that off his left knee and then tags Swanson as Swanson’s left hand is blocked/reaching for the plate.