ESPN radio on Crede call

[Dick Allen]

If we are being technical, the rule saids nothing about pitch speed.  The only thing specified is that they try to get out of the way.  Technically substituting one body part for another isn't getting out of the way.  Also the rule doesn't make any distinctions between trying to get hit, and just not trying to get out of the way.  The only thing that is specified is this.

There is nothing in there about trying to get hit.  Technically, it shouldn't make a differece in the umps mind.  Technically Crede did not get out of the way of the pitch, so technically he didn't deserve the base.  But Everett didn't make any effort to get out of the way either, he only tried to get hit in a different place.

 

And that in a nutshell is why the rule that was enforced against Crede was ignorant.  If you want to make that call, and use the rule to justify it, I would be willing to bet that call should be made on at least 50% of all HBPs, if the umps followed this rule to the letter of the law.

Your natural reaction to a pitch thrown in the direction the ball was thrown at

Everett is to turn your back. It is the natural reaction to trying to get out of the way. The reason I mentioned pitch speed is that there was a lot more time for Crede to react with the slow curveball than there was to Everett and a 95 mph fastball. If that was a fastball that hit Crede yesterday, even if he dipped into it, I would be willing to bet it wouldn't have been called the way it was. You are told in Little League that you have to attempt to get out of the way of a pitch to be awarded first base. That is why I don't understand why Crede was so upset. He knows he didn't try to get out of the way, It is rarely called, and in the spirit of the rule I would totally agree that a lot of HBP should be called balls.

[southsider2k5]

Your natural reaction to a pitch thrown in the direction the ball was thrown at

Everett is to turn your back. It is the natural reaction to trying to get out of the way. The reason I mentioned pitch speed is that there was a lot more time for Crede to react with the slow curveball than there was to Everett and a 95 mph fastball. If that was a fastball that hit Crede yesterday, even if he dipped into it, I would be willing to bet it wouldn't have been called the way it was.  You are told in Little League that you have to attempt to get out of the way of a pitch to be awarded first base. That is why I don't understand why Crede was so upset. He knows he didn't try to get out of the way,  It is rarely called, and in the spirit of the rule I would totally agree that a lot of HBP should be called balls.

 

I totally understand what your natural reaction is to having a ball thrown at you. But if we are looking at the letter of the rule, your natural reaction doesn't matter either. The only stipulation in that rule is that you have to try to get out of the way.

 

The fact that the rule is hardly ever used is exactly called, is exactly why Crede was upset. Pile that onto the fact that it was a key junction in the game, and you can even get a mild mannered player pissed off. If they called it even semi-regularly Crede wouldn't have said a word. But they don't, and unless they plan on starting to call it all of the time, they shouldn't have called it yesterday.

[jackie hayes]

I'm more upset when a call isn't made than when it is.

The fact that it's not made on other players is irrelevant to me in this instance.

In this case, the umpire was correct and that's all that matters to me.

But then you have to be upset 99% of the time, on these no-effort, no-call hbp and pitches that are "at the midpoint between the top of the shoulders and the top of the uniform pants" and still not called strikes.

 

I think most people, rather than getting upset that often, are satisfied that -- while the de facto rules don't always match book rules -- everyone knows what the standard is, so the playing field is level. Going back to the strike zone example, (almost) noone gets angry at an ump calling the usual strike zone consistently, even though it's not quite right. But if he calls the high strike all of a sudden at a sensitive time in the game, people will get angry -- it's the lack of consistency, rather than the other 15 times he didn't call it, that gets to them. I'm not saying your perspective is wrong, I'm just saying that it's pretty rare.

[ptatc]

I'm more upset when a call isn't made than when it is.

The fact that it's not made on other players is irrelevant to me in this instance.

In this case, the umpire was correct and that's all that matters to me.

Crede's selfish reaction after the popup is far more troubling to me, because it shows that he let the ump get in his head when he was in the wrong.

Still, that play didn't cost them this game. The offense was pathetic yesterday, and the defense was too.

 

Then I must assume you have a problem with every pitch between the belt and the armpits called a ball. The umps have selectively lowered the strike zone so it isn't in agreement with the rule book.

 

Do you also agree that any holding in football should always be called even if it' far away from the play? This occurs all the time where if it doesn't effect the play the NFL refs won't call it, otherwise games would be 5 hours long.

 

Any way you look at it, it is the right call but they rarely call it. Wendelstedt used it to get at Ozzie for calling him a liar and knew he could get away with it because it really is the right call.

 

Hopefully the Sox just go get Detriot and not let this send them into a death spiral for the season.

Edited April 28, 2005 by ptatc

[southsider2k5]

I think most people, rather than getting upset that often, are satisfied that -- while the de facto rules don't always match book rules -- everyone knows what the standard is, so the playing field is level. 

 

Exactly. Well said.

[The Critic]

Then I must assume you have a problem with every pitch between the belt and the armpits called a ball. The umps have selectively lowered the strike zone so it isn't in agreement with the rule book.

 

Do you also agree that any holding in football should always be called even if it' far away from the play? This occurs all the time where if it doesn't effect the play the NFL refs won't call it, otherwise games would be 5 hours long.

 

Any way you look at it, it is the right call but they rarely call it. Wendelstedt used it to get at Ozzie for calling him a liar and knew he could get away with it because it really is the right call.

 

Hopefully the Sox just go get Detriot and not let this send them into a death spiral for the season.

Damn right I have a problem with the strike zone. It's a complete joke, and it's half the reason for the overuse of bullpens across baseball. WAY too many unnecessary pitches being thrown for the simple reason that umpires have lost the strike zone.

 

And yeah, if it's a rule, CALL IT. If you're not going to call it, legalize it. I don't care if the play happens in the first 10 seconds ( or first pitch ) or the last 10 seconds ( or last out ). Call it every goddamned time, and eventually the players will either adapt or fail miserably and be gone. I don't care how it affects the game in the short term - the game adapted away from the proper strike zone, it can adapt back.

 

Hardline? yep. Unrealistic? Maybe. Probably, unfortunately.

Edited April 28, 2005 by The Critic

[ptatc]

Damn right I have a problem with the strike zone. It's a complete joke, and it's half the reason for the overuse of bullpens across baseball. WAY too many unnecessary pitches being thrown for the simple reason that umpires have lost the strike zone.

 

And yeah, if it's a rule, CALL IT. If you're not going to call it, legalize it. I don't care if the play happens in the first 10 seconds ( or first pitch ) or the last 10 seconds ( or last out ). Call it every goddamned time, and eventually the players will either adapt or fail miserably and be gone. I don't care how it affects the game in the short term - the game adapted away from the proper strike zone, it can adapt back.

 

Hardline? yep. Unrealistic? Maybe. Probably, unfortunately.

 

I agree with everything you said. But as you also state it's probably unrealistic that anything will change and we will always have moments like yesterdays because there is judgement where there should be consistency.

Edited April 28, 2005 by ptatc

[The Critic]

I agree with everything you said. But as you also state it's probably unrealistic that anything will change and we will always have moments like yesterdays because there is judgement where there should be consistency.

I agree with you as well, and that's why I'm not as upset about the call as I am in Crede's poor decision to whine at the umpire and get tossed. There's nothing to be gained from that other than the venting of a personal gripe, and it ended up causing the Sox to play an outfielder at shortstop ( rather than the 3rd baseman they were playing there.... ) in the 9th inning of a tied game.

You gotta pick your battles wisely, is all I'm saying.

[BHAMBARONS]

I agree with the call but the ejection went a little too far an ump has to understand the situation a controverisal call was just made and player will be upset all the ump had to do was walk away give him a warning or something. I seen that in the AZ/LA game last night Troy Glaus Batting with bases loaded 2 outs took a very questionable called strike on a 3-2 pitch and he had words with the HP ump and flung his back to the on deck circle and the ump gave him a warning and walked away end of story this was a case of an ump going on a power trip and there was no excuse for it.

[YASNY]

I agree with the call but the ejection went a little too far an ump has to understand the situation a controverisal call was just made and player will be upset all the ump had to do was walk away give him a warning or something.  I seen that in the AZ/LA game last night Troy Glaus Batting with bases loaded 2 outs took a very questionable called strike on a 3-2 pitch and he had words with the HP ump and flung his back to the on deck circle and the ump gave him a warning and walked away end of story this was a case of an ump going on a power trip and there was no excuse for it.

 

Very very good point, as arguing a pitch call is considered grounds for automatic ejection. That shows one umpire has a clue, and the other has an ego problem.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Based on the MLB rule of law you have physical & circumstantial evidence in this case.

 

The physical evidence is that Crede was HBP OUTSIDE of the strike zone.

This is evident by the Ball call. The rest is circumstantial evidence. Did Crede purposefully try to get HBP or was he unable to avoid it? Only a fool would try to decide that based on that one pitch alone. Does Crede have a high % of being HBP in his careeer? No. When subjectively trying to determine the hitter's motive surrounding the HBP event you can't ignore past history. That's just stupid.

[Punch and Judy Garland]

Should you get a speeding ticket for going 68 in a 65 zone on the expressway? You don't make that call in that situation

[The Critic]

Should you get a speeding ticket for going 68 in a 65 zone on the expressway? You don't make that call in that situation

Should you NOT get a speeding ticket for going 50 in a 35 just because someone else never gets caught doing it?

If I'm umping I make that call every time if I believe the batter wasn't trying to get out of the way.

 

That's the last I'm going to say about it - it's over, we're going around and around about it, and the Sox are gonna whomp on the Tiggers this weekend anyway, so it doesn't matter....

[jackie hayes]

Should you NOT get a speeding ticket for going 50 in a 35 just because someone else never gets caught doing it?

I will let this drop, but I just wanted to address this -- if a police officer lets all the white guys go 50 in a 35 but then pulls over a black guy who goes 50 in a 35, then I'd say that ticket is wrong, given the history. And that's similar to the concern here -- you don't want the umps to use the rule book as a cudgel against people they don't like. The Sox should be able to expect the same interpretation of the rules that any other team would get.

[The Critic]

I will let this drop, but I just wanted to address this -- if a police officer lets all the white guys go 50 in a 35 but then pulls over a black guy who goes 50 in a 35, then I'd say that ticket is wrong, given the history.  And that's similar to the concern here -- you don't want the umps to use the rule book as a cudgel against people they don't like.  The Sox should be able to expect the same interpretation of the rules that any other team would get.

So you're saying Wendelstedt is a racist????

AYE'M YOOST KEEEDEEEENG!!!

I know what you're getting at, but I really didn't see the call on Crede as a vendetta against Ozzie or the Sox. I just think Crede was too obvious about sticking out the elbow. The timing could definitely bring questions up ( it sure did with Hawk ), but I honestly didn't see it that way. A better acting job by Crede would've gotten him the base, I think.

[jackie hayes]

So you're saying Wendelstedt is a racist????

 

AYE'M YOOST KEEEDEEEENG!!!

I know what you're getting at, but I really didn't see the call on Crede as a vendetta against Ozzie or the Sox. I just think Crede was too obvious about sticking out the elbow. The timing could definitely bring questions up ( it sure did with Hawk ), but I honestly didn't see it that way. A better acting job by Crede would've gotten him the base, I think.

Fair enough. I'm not saying it was or wasn't payback, I haven't seen the play. I was just saying, that's the concern.

[Rex Hudler]

If we are being technical, the rule saids nothing about pitch speed.  The only thing specified is that they try to get out of the way.  Technically substituting one body part for another isn't getting out of the way.  Also the rule doesn't make any distinctions between trying to get hit, and just not trying to get out of the way.  The only thing that is specified is this.

There is nothing in there about trying to get hit.  Technically, it shouldn't make a differece in the umps mind.  Technically Crede did not get out of the way of the pitch, so technically he didn't deserve the base.  But Everett didn't make any effort to get out of the way either, he only tried to get hit in a different place.

 

And that in a nutshell is why the rule that was enforced against Crede was ignorant.  If you want to make that call, and use the rule to justify it, I would be willing to bet that call should be made on at least 50% of all HBPs, if the umps followed this rule to the letter of the law.

 

 

ss2k, I am going to speak about the rules in general and try not to re-open the can of worms Jim and I got into in another thread.

 

In addition to the Official Baseball Rules, umpires also have and use Interpretation and Case books. There is a separate book that deals strictly with the interpretation of rules in the rule book. Case Books provide sample plays (from real and imnagined situations) and the correct rulings for said plays. Umpires use those books and they are a legitimate, official source.

 

In this situation, there is a decided difference in how the rule is interpreted. Players are taught to rotate inward to avoid getting hit or to get hit in a meatier part of the body if it is inevitable (back of arm, ass, etc.). If a player does so then that is interpreted as sufficient "effort" to get out of the way. With players throwing as hard as they do now, basically a player has to overtly try to get hit in order for the play to be called this way. A player rolling his shoulder inward and getting caught with a fastball above the elbow is never going to get called. A player who has time on a slow breaking ball, changeup, etc. to react to avoid and then react again trying to get hit will have it called against them. It doesn't happen very often so the "consistency" argument is only valid if you compare it to very similar cases.

 

Personally, I have no doubt Crede not only could have avoided the ball without much effort at all, but he made a secondary effort to get hit. Some here do not agree. That's fine, I don't want to debate that. I just want to make sure that people understand the differences between similar situations. Not all are the same nor are they all interpreted the same. The key is understanding that the umpires have reference materials beyond the rule book itself that allows them to make calls.

Edited April 29, 2005 by Rex Hudler

[JUGGERNAUT]

Is it just possible that Crede was faked out by the pitch? How many check swings occur in a ballgame? What do they represent? Hitters being fooled by a pitch. Sometimes they can control the swing enough to where it's not a strike & other times they can't. The key to it all is that it's only a question when it's a ball.

 

http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?ac...ndpost&p=661383

 

The problem I have with the call is that it's completely ignorant of the history that transpired in the series. You might think that doesn't matter.

I believe it does. The A's beaned 5 Sox players before Crede was hit.

That's not normal. That's a recipe for a bench clearing brawl. That's something the league does not want to see. Many teams would have said F the rules & bean as A's player in the 2nd game. The Sox were more concerned about winning than retaliation.

 

There was not one umpire in this game who had a perspective on the field to legitimately make that call with a degree of reasonable certainty. That's why it was a bad call. But more important than the call itself is the message it sent to the league. Here was a series where one team repeatedly beaned another & that team didn't retaliate. Where they rewarded? No. They were penalized in the end. In a close game that may have made the difference.

 

So if you were on a team & found out this crew was working your next series would you be more inclined or less inclined to bean opposing players? If your team gets beaned are you more inclined or less inclined to retaliate? It's early in the season. If this crew is not reprimanded it could lead to worse things. A lot worse.

 

IMO, that pitcher should have been ejected after Rowand. The warnings go to the team & not an individual player. Look at the history:

Mon - HBP: P Ozuna (By B Zito), J Crede (By B Zito)

Tue - HBP: C Everett (By R Harden), P Ozuna (By K Yabu);

Wed - HBP: A Rowand (By J Duchscherer), Crede (By J Duchscherer)

[The Critic]

"There was not one umpire in this game who had a perspective on the field to legitimately make that call with a degree of reasonable certainty."

 

I'm not sure I'd agree, Jugg. Hunter signaled it immediately, no hesitation whatsoever. His attention has to be on the incoming pitch, so I believe that his perspective is adequate to make that type of call. In my own humble opinion, Crede was not faked out. To my eyes, he moved out of the way a little, then dipped his shoulder and stuck his elbow out just a bit. It was fairly blatant and obvious to me, and apparently to Wendelstedt too. Like I said, he started pointing back to the batter's box right away. I agree with the call.

 

I know I said I was done with this, but apparently I meant I was done replying to Jackie Hayes.....

[jackie hayes]

Psych!

 

It's okay, many posters shrink before my awesome logic. You're no less of a man than before...if that is any consolation.

[JUGGERNAUT]

In my own humble opinion, Crede was not faked out. To my eyes, he moved out of the way a little, then dipped his shoulder and stuck his elbow out just a bit.

 

It makes no sense. He's on a hot streak (hitting over .300), playing on a bad foot, & has no of the lowest HBP counts on the team in past years. It just makes no sense for him to do that. IMHO, Crede has proven to be an aggresive hitter at the plate. Meaning he's more likely to swing than to take. As soon as the ball was released he probably had it in mind to swing & then as the pitch came at him he did everything in his power to hold the swing back. In the process he got hit.

 

Now here's the thing whether you agree with the ump or not. What's the history behind such a call & what's best for the game? The game has been played for over a 100 yrs & yet such calls are more rare than perfect games. As for what was best for the game? Since pitchers are not required to hit in the AL this was definitely not in the game's best interest. As I said earlier this crew allowed one team to bean the other 6 times in the series. If the Sox learned anything in this series it's to retaliate early. That's the lesson this crew taught them & the rest of the AL because it doesn't pay to ignore it.

[Rex Hudler]

It makes no sense.  He's on a hot streak (hitting over .300), playing on a bad foot, & has no of the lowest HBP counts on the team in past years.  It just makes no sense for him to do that.  IMHO, Crede has proven to be an aggresive hitter at the plate.  Meaning he's more likely to swing than to take.  As soon as the ball was released he probably had it in mind to swing & then as the pitch came at him he did everything in his power to hold the swing back.  In the process he got hit.

 

Now here's the thing whether you agree with the ump or not.  What's the history behind such a call & what's best for the game?  The game has been played for over a 100 yrs & yet such calls are more rare than perfect games.  As for what was best for the game?  Since pitchers are not required to hit in the AL this was definitely not in the game's best interest.  As I said earlier this crew allowed one team to bean the other 6 times in the series.  If the Sox learned anything in this series it's to retaliate early.  That's the lesson this crew taught them & the rest of the AL because it doesn't pay to ignore it.

 

It is a natural reaction for a player to do whatever it takes to get on base in a close game. IF Crede is awarded first base and then goes on to score the winning run, he is lauded for his "smarts".

 

Such calls are more rare than perfect games (your words) because the same situation is rare. I have tried to explain how that situation is different than a guy turning into a pitch that is moving into him and letting it catch him on the upper arm. I'm sorry you refuse to grasp the difference. It is not like this is a common occurrence.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I have tried to explain how that situation is different than a guy turning into a pitch that is moving into him and letting it catch him on the upper arm.  I'm sorry you refuse to grasp the difference.  It is not like this is a common occurrence.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It is you who does not grasp something. You are trying to assess motive based SOLELY on body english. That's ridiculous. Did you bother to read any quotes by Crede? There are a multitude of explanations for Crede's body english on the play. Believe what you will. It's pointless to continue this when all you cling to is your own subjective viewpoint.

Ignoring factual evidence in the process. (Crede's HBP history, his hot streak, & how often this call has been made since the AL adopted the DH - a BIG difference).

[Rex Hudler]

It is you who does not grasp something.  You are trying to assess motive based SOLELY on body english.  That's ridiculous.  Did you bother to read any quotes by Crede?  There are a multitude of explanations for Crede's body english on the play.  Believe what you will.  It's pointless to continue this when all you cling to is your own subjective viewpoint.

Ignoring factual evidence in the process.  (Crede's HBP history, his hot streak, & how often this call has been made since the AL adopted the DH - a BIG difference).

 

You're right, I don't know s*** about this game...........

 

By the way, since you seem to have the factual evidence, how many times has this call been made since 1974? How many times has the slow inside curveball been ignored? I'm sure you have the numbers since you are spouting factual knowledge. Curious minds would like to know.

[The Critic]

It makes no sense.  He's on a hot streak (hitting over .300), playing on a bad foot, & has no of the lowest HBP counts on the team in past years.  It just makes no sense for him to do that.  IMHO, Crede has proven to be an aggresive hitter at the plate.  Meaning he's more likely to swing than to take.  As soon as the ball was released he probably had it in mind to swing & then as the pitch came at him he did everything in his power to hold the swing back.  In the process he got hit.

 

Now here's the thing whether you agree with the ump or not.  What's the history behind such a call & what's best for the game?  The game has been played for over a 100 yrs & yet such calls are more rare than perfect games.  As for what was best for the game?  Since pitchers are not required to hit in the AL this was definitely not in the game's best interest.  As I said earlier this crew allowed one team to bean the other 6 times in the series.  If the Sox learned anything in this series it's to retaliate early.  That's the lesson this crew taught them & the rest of the AL because it doesn't pay to ignore it.

Is an umpire supposed to decide in a second what's best for the history of the game, or how many times a call has been made before they make a call??

The guy saw Crede do something ( that I also believe he did ) and made a call.

You don't agree and that's perfectly fine. I've never once argued that you're not supposed to think that, or implied that you don't know baseball. You simply see something in a different light than others. If you had been the umpire, Crede would've gotten first base. He didn't get first, and in my opinion his head got messed up, leading to a weak popup, a temper tantrum and an early shower.