This folder is reserved for discussions related to the pitcher, section 8.00 of Official Baseball Rules. Included are topics like balks, The Windup vs. The Set positions, illegal pitches, trips to the mound, etc.

Post away!

Umpire,

Since this is my first year playing Fantasy Baseball, I have questions concerning Wins, Losses and Saves.

1) What qualifies a SP as the winning pitcher? Is it number of innings with a lead when removed from the game? I've seen several games, like the Atlanta game today where Maddux pitched a shutout 7 innings but didn't get the win?

2) How is the losing pitcher determined? Sometimes I've seen SP's given the Loss, and just can't figure out why!

3)Many times a RP is given the Win. What's the rule concerning that? It looks like if the RP pitches more than one inning and gets or maintains the lead, he gets the win - but I'm just not certain about that.

I would love to clarify this in my head as the season progresses. Right now, it's kind of irritating when I don't get Fantasy points that I think I'm due! frown

Are these questions not appropiate for this topic? Haven't seen a reply and I was just wondering!

I'm sure he just missed the topic or something. Anyway, maybe I can help...

1) What qualifies a SP as the winning pitcher?

A starter has to pitch at least 5 innings, and his team has to have the lead when he leaves the game--or his team has to take the lead in its next at-bat before the next pitcher comes in. Example: Phils' Randy Wolf pitches 7 innings but the Mets are ahead 1-0. They pinch-hit for Wolf and the Phils score 2 in the bottom of the 7th to take a 2-1 lead, and they keep the lead the rest of the way. Wolf then gets the win.

2) How is the losing pitcher determined?

Whichever pitcher, starter or reliever, who gives up the run that puts a team ahead to stay, gets the loss. Example: the Mets' Al Leiter starts and allows one run to the Phillies in 7 innings but is losing 1-0. They pinch-hit for Leiter in the top of the 8th but do not score. In the bottom of the 8th the Phillies score 14 runs off of 5 different Mets' relievers. wink Doesn't matter that they pitched so horribly. Leiter is the losing pitcher. Even if the Mets got a couple of runs in the ninth--or even 14 runs of their own, Leiter would still be the loser. He could only avoid the loss if the Mets tied the game.

3)Many times a RP is given the Win. What's the rule concerning that? It looks like if the RP pitches more than one inning and gets or maintains the lead, he gets the win - but I'm just not certain about that.

If the starting pitcher doesn't go 5 innings, or if he's losing or the game is tied when he leaves, a relief pitcher has to get the win. Even if the reliever pitches to just one batter--or, as happened recently in a game, gets an out via a pickoff of a runner without even throwing a pitch. (See the thread about the Tigers reaching new lows.) The reliever who gets the win is usually the one in the game at the point where his team takes the lead, although the official scorer has some discretion in this area. For example: the Phillies take a 10-0 lead over the Mets after 4 innings. To start the top of the 5th, Brett Myers of the Phils hits the Mets' Vance Wilson with a pitch and is ejected by some mean, nasty umpire. Terry Adams replaces Myers and gives up 8 runs in 3 innings. Turk Wendell pitches one shutout inning, and Jose Mesa then pitches a scoreless 9th inning. Final score 10-8 Phillies. Myers, the starter, didn't get out of the 5th so he can't get the win. Adams could get the win, but the official scorer has the leeway to give the win to Wendell instead because Adams pitched poorly. Mesa, of course, gets the save.

If I'm mistaken or forgetting something I hope someone will clarify.

[ May 28, 2003, 11:36 PM: Message edited by: Joe in Philly ]

billsf,

I don't know how I missed your post. It must have sliped by. My apologies; I wasn't ignoring you.

Joe did a good job of answering for me, so I need not elaborate further. I WILL mention, BTW, that your question falls under the scoring rules. Section 10.00 of Official Baseball Rules deals with such situations as the ones about which you asked above. Interestingly, even though section 10.00 deals with scoring rules, this section is NOT considered part of the actual baseball rules themselves. They were simply included in the same publication as a convenience.

Also, we umpires don't train on knowing the intricacies of the scoring rules. God knows we've got enough to keep us busy!

I think you pretty much have it, Joe. But for a losing pitcher, there's one little nasty technicality. It's whoever is "responsible" for the run that puts the other team in the lead for good, that gets the loss. If a pitcher leaves with runner(s) on base, he is responsible for any of those runners that score*. So if Wolf leaves the game with a 2-1 lead but leaves with two runners on, and the reliever lets those two runs in, and the Phils end up losing 3-2, Wolf gets rewarded with the loss.

*Another technicality. If Wolf leaves the game with base runner Smith on first base, and he is then forced out at second, but Jones is now the runner on first base, Wolf is still responsible for base runner Jones.

*Yet another technicality. If a pitcher leaves while someone is batting, and there is at least a one ball count. If he gets on base as a result of a walk, he is the first pitcher's responsibility.

Sorry, Ump. I see you answered while I posted the above.

[ May 28, 2003, 11:59 PM: Message edited by: pat125 ]

Thanks guys! It's still confusing as hell, but I can refer to the above explanations if I'm totally lost. It's just so frustrating when a RP gets a win after a brilliant performance from the SP. :mad:

Actually, Pat, it depends on what the count is. If a new pitcher comes in with a 1-0 count and walks the batter, said batter is the new pitcher's responsibility and not the old one's.

Thought this "pitcher" folder might be the appropriate place for this...

Ump (and others who want to throw in their two cents), what are your thoughts on ejecting pitchers from the game because of hitting a batter? Is it becoming more common? It seems that I've seen a lot of ejections this season. In most cases I totally agree with the ejections, as I find intentional hitting of a batter to be one of the most juvenile things that goes on in professional sports. But I've seen a couple of ejections recently when I thought the pitchers clearly would not have done it purposely.

Last night I was in a bar with no volume on the TV, so I didn't catch everything, but late in the game a Chicago pitcher was ejected for hitting a Royals batter at a time when the R's were rallying, there were two outs, men on base, 0-2 count. Clearly the pitcher would not purposely load the bases in that situation. Right? On an 0-2 count!

There was a very similar situation a couple weeks ago, when a Royals pitcher was ejected for hitting a batter, which resulted in loading the bases when the R's were up by only one point, on a full count, late in the game. It seems so obvious that a pitcher would not intentionally do that.

I understand that the umpire must first give a warning, and after that that the rules read something like "if in the judgement of the umpire" the batter is purposely hit, he may eject the pitcher. I know the umpire must closely watch the pitch to determine if it was on purpose, but don't they also have to consider the game situation to determine if a pitcher would purposely hit a batter?

I think the umpire ought to have the option of removing a pitcher anytime a batter is hit - no prior warning required. There will be some instances where that would be appropriate. I think the standard procedure should be one warning and then your off the mound for a second incident whether the ump feels it was deliberate or not. It's either deliberate or just sloppy at that point (even assuming a batter might be crowding the plate) you're off the mound.

As far as game context goes, I'm not sure what you're getting at. A pitcher could be beaning a batter over something that happened in the parking lot, the club last night or spring training three years ago. Game context isn't necessarily going to establish the deliberateness of the throw.

Max,

Actually, we do not have to issue a warning before ejecting a pitcher. If we believe that he is intentionally throwing at a batter--whether he hits him or not--we can immediately eject him.

This entire situation, however, is perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of our job, for it involved literally getting in the mind of a pitcher. Trying to read his mind isn't easy. There are certain things that make it a bit easier to deduce that what he's doing is intentional, but overall, it's challenging, to say the least.

What complicates matters is that we are often given directives by our superiors with respect to issuance of warnings, prior problems, etc. Many times these directives make us look like the bad guys, and we end up taking the heat. On one hand we're told to not tolerate this and eject immediately. On the other hand, we're told to not be so quick to eject.

Essentially, we're damned if we do, damned if we don't.

Wouldn't matters be a little less contentious if umpires warned both teams before the start of a series that anything that could be construed as deliberately throwing at another player SHALL be immediate grounds for ejecting the pitcher and manager? This could PARTICULARLY be used in cases of series you know have the potential for a beanball war and/or a bench clearing brawl (like the one between the Orioles and Mariners in '93 or the Os and Yankees in the mid- to -late '90s, the one where Armando Benitez was a wanted man by the Yanks.)

Hypothetical situation:

And, let's say that the Os are playing the Phillies and Larry Bowa was already ejected for arguing balls and strikes in the third inning and Vicente Padilla hits Jeff Conine in the sixth after Jason Johnson gets warned for throwing at Pat Burrell in the fourth. You decide that Padilla needs to go and so does his manager, but the manager's already in the clubhouse. Do you automatically toss the bench coach or do you already know who the acting manager will be beforehand?

Destiny,

Actually, we do issue pregame warnings--in certain situations.

If the situation warrants, our superiors order us to issue warnings in the pregame conference. This is sometimes done based on prior problems involving the two teams.

Thanks for the info ump. I wish you could call in to one of our local sports talk shows where they're always bashing the umpires about ejections. Just today they were talking about last night's incident, saying that younger umpires aren't using good judgement in such situations, while older umps tend to give it more thought before tossing up that thumb to eject a pitcher. I tend to agree with the radio hosts that under circumstances where a game could be lost by putting an extra man on base in the 8th or 9th inning, the ump should stop for an extra second or two to consider whether the beaning was purposeful. Maybe I'm being naive about it, but I find it hard to believe that a pitcher would essentially throw a game in order to satisfy a stupid grudge.

Hmm... you would think that a veteran pitcher with enough baseball common sense would not throw at a guy when the resulting hit-batsman could bring the tying run or the go-ahead run to the plate in the late innings, particularly if the offensive team is mounting a threat.

Then again, a pitcher can either be too inexperienced to know better or too much of a hothead to remember what the situation calls for and may want to settle the score.

I usually prefer the Earl Weaver approach. Retaliate by pitching and hitting better and winning baseball games. Let the White Sox try to hit Cal Ripken or send Eddie Murray to dirt eating school. The Orioles will just use that as fuel to score 11 runs to win a key LCS game (ala 1983.)

Darn... and I was going to ask you about the leeway the official scorer has in picking the winning pitcher.

I'll just go ahead with my example anyway. There was a game back in I think 1989 when the Orioles went ahead when they had Mark Thurmond pitching in relief, but he was ineffective. Frank Robinson brought Mark Williamson in relief and he pitched well in this particular game. If I remember correctly, the Orioles went on to win this particular game. HOWEVER, instead of giving Thurmond the win, the scorer named Williamson the winning pitcher because, in his judgement, Thurmond was too ineffective.

How are the rules set up to give the scorer that kind of leeway and how MUCH leeway does the scorer have?

Give me the phone number. You never know, one day I just might. wink

Ump, my question involves pick off moves and balks. I was watching the Yankees/Mariners game today when Steve Lyons, the FOX commentator, was talking about Andy Pettite and his now famous pickoff move. Lyons went as far as suggesting that Pettite cheats just a little bit to fool the baserunner far enough off the base with an almost flinch-like motion that he does when he rotates. I thought I've always understood the differences between a balk and clean pick-off move, but I am now more confused then ever. If he was cheating even just a little bit, wouldn't this be considered a balk (which is rarely called any more on any pitcher). Please explain to me (and other interested Outsporters) what the umpire is really looking for when determining a clean pick off move and an actual balk.

How about the other question I posed:

And, let's say that the Os are playing the Phillies and Larry Bowa was already ejected for arguing balls and strikes in the third inning and Vicente Padilla hits Jeff Conine in the sixth after Jason Johnson gets warned for throwing at Pat Burrell in the fourth. You decide that Padilla needs to go and so does his manager, but the manager's already in the clubhouse. Do you automatically toss the bench coach or do you already know who the acting manager will be beforehand?

Destiny,

If we issue a warning that involves the pitcher and his manager, and the original manager is no longer present, the warning can apply to the new, acting manager, whoever that might be. If it's the third base coach, so be it. If it's the pitching coach, same thing.

Cattledog, first thing to remember: Announcers and play-by-play persons are poor sources when it comes to the rules of the game. They are unbelievably clueless when it comes to knowing what's what, especially on balks.

When a left-handed pitcher is throwing to first base, we look at a few things. First, permit me to preface this by emphasizing this: A lefty's pivot foot is his left foot. His right foot is his free foot.

Having said that, when a lefty throws to first base from the rubber, his free foot must go more toward first than to home. It also must gain some ground toward first. If he simply picks it up, steps down into literally the same place from where it started, then throws to first, it's a balk. If his free foot steps a bit more toward home than to first, it's a balk.

If the greater portion of his right leg (his free foot leg) crosses the back plain of the rubber, he must either deliver the pitch to home, or continue the step and throw to second base. So, if there's a runner on first only and the greater portion of his right leg crosses the back plain of the rubber, he must pitch to home and cannot throw to first. If he does, it's a balk.

Hope this helps. If you need any more info re. this subject, feel free to ask.

Hope I'm in the appropriate thread here.

I just finished reading The Twenty-Four-Inch Home Run, about odd-but-true baseball minutiae. In it is a story about an ambidextrous pitcher from the late 1800s, and it got me wondering if a switch-throwing pitcher could exist today.

Tony Mullane, the subject of the piece, shunned wearing a glove, so neither potential base stealers nor batters had any idea which hand he was going to use until he launched the ball. Is this legal now? Switch hitters can't switch during an at-bat, if I'm not mistaken (unless there's a pitching change during it), so a pitcher has to use the same throwing arm throughout an at-bat, right? Also, are gloves now a requirement for all players in the field?


For anyone who cares, I quote from the book:

...and how do you hit a 24-inch homer?

When nobody in 1902 sees a ball hit two feet in front of the plate and gets buried in the mud.

Fever, while this is not specifically addressed in the rules, there is an official interpretation that deals with this.

Batters can change batter's boxes provided the pitcher is not on the rubber ready to pitch. (The count is irrelevant.) Pitchers, however, cannot keep switching their pitching hands. If a pitcher is ambidextrous, he is required to state which hand he will use to pitch during a batter's at-bat. If he does not state it, the first hand he uses will be considered the one he must use for the duration of that at-bat.

So, once a lefty, always a lefty, at least during a batter's at-bat.

Ump--have you seen San Diego reliever Akinori Otsuka pitch in a game yet?

The guys motion is a balk. He takes the ball out of his glove and then puts in back in his glove and then pitches. I can't believe that such a motion would be allowed simply because "he does that all the time" so it can't be deceiving to the batter or to the runners.

Art Howe protested this last night. I know that MLB won't grant the protest (somehow I wonder if they ever do), but perhaps they will make a comment about Akinori Otsuka's motion.

What are your thoughts?

Josh

josh, the Joint Committee is aware of his actions. So far, the consensus is that he is not committing a balk. Whether one interprets his actions as "momentarily adjusting the ball," which is legal, or something else, our opinion thus far is that he's doing nothing wrong. Remember that managers and coaches often perceive unorthodox--but legal--pitching deliveries as balks.

I understand what you are saying, but I believe Rick Reed was quoted as saying to Art Howe, that if the pitcher did the same motion with runners on base, they would have called a balk.

How can the same motion be legal with no one on, but illegal with runners on base?

Thanks

Josh

Because a balk cannot be committed with no runners on base. wink

Example: Runner on third when the pitcher begins his windup. He stumbles and falls. That's a balk, R3 awarded home. Now, if the pitcher does this same thing with no runners on base, it's nothing, no penalty. The pitcher simply begins again.

And what about the requirement that the pitcher come to a stop when pitching from the Set position? If he's using the Set with no one on base and doesn't stop, are you going to call a balk? Of course not; there are no runners on base. You WILL tell him, however, that he's still supposed to stop, but other than ejecting him for this, there's nothing else that can be done.

There are numerous things a pitcher can do with no one on base that he cannot do with runners on.

OK...then what "illegal" acts by a pitcher could occur with nobody on that you would award a ball to the batter for the violation. (The only one I can think of off the top of my head is blowing on your hands when in contact with the rubber).

Thanks

Josh

NEW YORK (AP) -- The New York Mets' protest of a game against the San Diego Padres because of a pitcher's delivery was denied Wednesday by Major League Baseball.

Do we know whether Otsuka's delivery would have been ruled a balk if there had been a man on base? Or is it OK anytime, anywhere?

Josh, check out 8.02(a--2-6). That might give you a start. BTW, a pitcher is allowed to blow on his hand in cold weather, even if he's in contact with the rubber. He can't lick his pitching hand while on the mound. This is quite different from Federation and NCAA.

Ump--got another pitching question.

Right handed pitcher pitching from the wind-up.

In the act of pitching, must he always move back with his left foot first?

I had a pitcher last night who was standing on top of the rubber in the wind up position. Is next move was to put his right foot in "the hole" and then continue with his motion to the plate.

If he did that with a runner on third, wouldn't that be a balk?

Thanks

Josh

Hi, Josh:

When a pitcher is pitching from the Windup, it is an option for him to step back with his nonpivot foot. He doesn't have to if he doesn't want to.

In other words, he may step once backward but must step once forward toward home plate to pitch (failure to do so is a balk). Either step must be within, or as close as possible to, based on the pitcher's normal windup, the 24-inch length of the rubber.

Hope this helps.

Ump---today was my first game this year and I must say it felt good to get back out on the field this year.

Anyway, since I was busy getting the rust off, something came up during the game and I hope I can get an answer from you.

Team A had a runner on second. The pitcher started his motion towards home, and then saw the runner breaking towards third, so he changed directions and started to throw towards third.

Before the ball was released, I called a balk, but the pitcher threw towards third anyway. The ball eluded the third baseman and went into dead ball territory.

I was going to give the offense a choice of the play (the balk), or the penalty (the dead ball), but my partner convinced me the ball was dead.

I thought the ball was dead only in NFHS on a balk but not in pro.

What do you think?

Josh

Josh,

In NFHS rules, the ball is immediately dead on a balk. Under NCAA and OBR (Official Baseball Rules, a.k.a. Pro Rules), it's a delayed dead ball. In cases where the pitcher balks then throws to a base, you let the play go through. If every runner on base advances a base on his own (if a runner misses his advance base, by the way, tough), then the balk is disregarded and the play stands. So, in your situation, you would point and exclaim, "That's a balk!" The pitcher then throws to third and the ball is thrown out of play. Since the ball was thrown into dead ball territory--I'm assuming from the rubber here--then all runners are awarded one base from the time of the throw. This result nullifies the balk altogether and the play stands.

When a pitcher pitches the ball and balks, let the play continue. If the batter reaches first and all other runners advance a base, the balk is disregarded. If not, the balk is enforced.

There's a bit more to this, but I think this should help you so far. Here are a few examples for the heck of it:

PLAY 1: Runners on first and third with no outs when the pitcher balks and throws to first to pick off R1. The ball gets away, allowing R3 to score, but R1 can't make it to second. RULING 1: The instant it is obvious that R1 did not advance, "time" is called, R3 is awarded home, and R1 awarded second on the balk.

PLAY 2: Runner on second when the pitcher balks and delivers the pitch. The batter hits the ball to left field, advancing R2 to third. RULING 2: Because R2 and the batter-runner both advanced a base, the balk is disregarded and the play stands.

Good luck on your new season. Enjoy.

Regards...

[ April 10, 2005, 07:01 PM: Message edited by: MLB UMPIRE ]

So just to clarify one point---in my game, let's say there was a lot of foul territory (like in Oakland), and after I called the balk, the runner going into third was able to get up and score.
I can allow that to stand under pro rules---correct?

By the way---during the Mets/Braves game yesterday, Jose Reyes got thrown out at third base after rounding the base too far and then trying to get back. Dana Demuth did the wierdest out call I've ever seen with his right hand. If you see it, you'll be in for a laugh.

Josh

Josh,

That is correct. Because he advanced to third, the balk is disregarded, so his continued advance to home is permitted. Remember, the balk is a delayed dead ball. This means it will be either be dead at the end of the play or it won't. In this particular situation, it won't become dead; therefore, you don't even mention it or make further reference to it. It's as if it never happened, even though the defensive manager may complain about it when he notices you're allowing the runner to come all the way home.

I have a basic question not about rules, but a pharse. Can you please explain what "pitching from the stretch" is? Does this have anything to do with how some pitchers eg: Mussina seem to touch their toes before the throw. It is a nagging question for me.

The "stretch" just means that the pitcher doesn't use a full windup before throwing. They do that when runners are on base so that it takes a little less time to get the ball to the plate, in order to try and keep the runner from stealing a base.

Thank you, that makes sense.

Daniel,

Essentially, the "stretch" is another term for the Set position. There are two legal pitching positions, the Windup and the Set, and either can be used at any time, though as Joe said, the Set is usually used at certain times. Each position also has its own limitations in terms of what can and cannot be done.

Didn't see a Scoring thread and don't know if this has already been answered (or even if the Ump is still around), but quick question:

Does a reliever get credited for a Blown Save if the tieing run is unearned? I was reading on another site about Farnsworth getting a BS because of a botched double play that was ruled a fielder's choice. If it had been ruled an error (not possible on a DP, I know, but still), would it still be a BS?

Official scoring and stats don't fall under the umpires' jurisdiction. But a reliever can still get a blown save even if the runs are unearned. For example, a little over a week ago there was a game in which the Cards' Jason Isringhausen gave up a hit and two walks to load the bases, then got the next hitter to hit a ground ball that should've been a double play to end the game, except it went right through Scott Rolen's legs. The game was tied and the Cubs ended up winning in extra innings. The boxscore shows both runs that scored as unearned, and Isringhausen was charged with his third blown save of the year.

Indeed. They're also not part of the playing rules. Only 1.00 through 9.00 are considered part of the playing rules and are what we concern ourselves with.

Although this has been discussed ad nauseam on Sporting News Radio and ESPN radio, what is your opinion of whether Kenny Rogers should have been thrown out of the game by the umpire during game 2 of the World Series for having a foreign substance on the palm of his hand? Will this encourage Little League pitchers to begin to use foreign substances to enhance their pitching? Also, how many bad experiences have umpires reported during the past season of pitchers using foreign substances to enhance their pitching?

Because I wasn't there, Phil, I cannot comment on whether Mr. Rogers should have been ejected or not. Supervisor Palermo appeared to have taken care of the situation through Marsh, the crew chief.

As far as the number of situations involving foreign substances, that is a rare occurrence.

Ump,

Got a question for you...

When it's about to be the second visit to the mound in a inning (an automatic removal of a pitcher), when exactly does that visit start?

Is it the moment the manager asks for time and leaves the dugout, or does it not actually take effect until the manager gets to the mound?

I was at Dodger stadium yesterday. Grady Little had already made one visit to the mound. He called time and went out of the dugout a good 10-15 feet one batter later. In my mind, shouldn't this be considered his second visit at this point?

What happened next was Little realized that the Mets were going to send up a pinch hitter, and since LA had a righty and a lefty in the pen, he BOLTED back to the dugout and waited for the Mets to announce the PH, before he decided what reliever to bring in.

How can that be legal, since he was already out of the dugoug a second time to change pitchers? Shouldn't that change have been done immediately, before the Mets PH was announced?

Just wondering, because I'm very confused.

thanks
Josh

Josh,

Under Official Baseball Rules, a trip to the mound does not begin until the manager crosses the foul line on his way to the mound. It ends when he leaves the mound. Also, keep in mind that a manager is prohibited from making a second trip to the mound in the same inning while the same batter is at bat. If he ignores the umpire's warning regarding this prohibition (a warning must be given), he's ejected and the pitcher replaced when the batter's at bat is completed. (This is only while the same batter is at bat. If the batter is replaced mid-count, the pitcher can be replaced via a second trip.)

In Little's case, he did not cross the foul line on his way to the mound; therefore, no trip was charged.

Ump,

While enjoying my MLB extra innings package, I am taking in a few innings of the Giants/Rockies game and I saw something that I can honestly say is confusing the hell out of me.

Top of the 7th, runner on 3rd with 1 out. I couldn't tell if it was the Colorado batter or the Giants catcher, but either one of both of them asked Gary Darling for time.
Darling than proceeded to grant time (you can actually hear is voice on TV say "TIME") and threw his hands up in the air to signal the typical time out hand/arm gesture.
Naturally, this causes Tim Linecum who was pitching from the windup, to stop mid delivery since time had been called.
Now Darling calls Linecum for a balk?!?!?!?!?! I don't get that. How on earth can you have a balk called *after* time out is granted.

I'm really confused so if you have any insight that would be great.

Thanks

Josh