Week of July 26, 2019

It’s a TOB Only Week: Exactly one year after this amazing photo was taken, these two lovebirds are tying the knot this weekend. Congrats PAL and NML!

Why Are We Still Discussing This? MLB Needs to Mandate Immediate Extension of Protective Netting to the Foul Poles

Last weekend, a 3-year old was struck by a foul line drive off the bat of Francisco Lindor of the Cleveland Indians. At this time, the extent of the child’s injuries are unknown, but he was seen rushed up from the stands in the arms of an adult, presumably his father. This incident came on the heels of a similar incident in May, where the Chicago Cubs’ Albert Almora, Jr. fouled a ball off that struck a toddler in the head. That child, we now know, suffered a fractured skull, subdural bleeding, brain contusions, and brain edema. The child was lucky to survive. After these incidents, Lindor and Almora were each visibly upset. After their respective incidents, Almora and Lindor joined the growing chorus of people calling for MLB to expand protective netting all the way to the foul pole. 

Last season, MLB mandated protective netting to the ends of the dugouts. It was a good move, but it was not enough. Since then, injuries have continued to occur. In a story that did not get much press, a woman was killed after she was struck in the head by a foul ball at Dodger Stadium last year. Countless others have been injured, some severely.

The hesitancy doesn’t even make sense to me. Why? Is it because MLB is worried that high paying customers will object? It would appear so. In June, after the Almora incident, MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred said:

“We do have fans that are vocal about the fact that they don’t want to sit behind nets. I think that we have struck the balance in favor of fan safety so far, and I think we will continue to do that going forward.”

But that doesn’t fly when they already have protective netting for the highest paying customers. And has anyone heard fans raising a stink about the extension of netting to the ends of the dugouts? No. Have fans stopped paying for seats there? No. Why? Because if you’ve ever sat behind home plate, you know that you don’t notice the netting after just a few seconds in your seat. 

In defense of his defenseless inaction, Manfred also blamed “structural issues”:

“It’s very difficult given how far the clubs have gone with the netting to make changes during the year because they really are structural issues.”

Whatever that means. This year, season, two teams made the decision and completed and then completed installation of netting to the foul poles, so we know it’s not impossible. One of those teams is the Chicago White Sox, and White Sox pitcher Lucas Giolito applauded the move:

“I think it’s great. I see the counter-arguments like, ‘Don’t sit there’ or ‘Just pay attention to the game.’ Dude, no matter how much you’re paying attention to the game, if that thing’s coming in 115 miles an hour with tail, no matter if you have a glove this big, it could hit you right in the forehead.

Well put, Lucas. I recently sat in the lower bowl behind the dugout at a Giants game, solo-parenting with my two boys, ages 5 and 2. We were behind the netting, but high enough that foul balls can loop over the net. I can tell you that while I paid attention to the game, and I was on very high alert for foul balls, throughout the game there were many times where the boys were distracting me and my eyes were not on the field; and there were two instances where that occurred when a ball was hit in our general vicinity. That split second when I could sense (by crowd reaction) that a ball was on its way toward us but couldn’t locate it was terrifying. In those instances, I jumped out of my seat to block the kids, having no idea where the ball was. Does that sound like fun?

So I ask: WHY ARE WE STILL DISCUSSING THIS? Extend the netting! -TOB

Does a Purpose Pitch Serve Its Purpose?

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Eno Sarris has quickly become one of my very favorite sportswriters. In addition to answering my emails asking for fantasy baseball advice (seriously) his writing blends analytics with scouting to explore some of the most previously opaque concepts in baseball. This week, he tackled the “purpose pitch”.

His jump-off was about a recent spat between the Pirates and Cubs. Cubs manager Joe Maddon got angry when a Pirates pitcher threw a ball high and inside to Cubs’ star Javier Baez:

“[W]hen your guys keep getting thrown at their head, that’s another thing, too. It’s not just us. It’s an industry-wide concept that we know that they’re into, and I have it from really good sources.”

What is this industry-wide concept? The purpose pitch. And what is it and why does everyone know the Pirates are “into” it? Here’s an explanation from Travis Sawchick’s 2015 book, Big Data Baseball:

“[P]rior to the 2013 season [the Pirates] found that pitching inside would indeed have a psychological effect on batters that would create even more ground balls and further enhance the plan. The numbers showed that opponents were more likely to pull outside pitches on the ground after being pitched inside earlier. … After being pitched inside, players were less willing to aggressively lunge at outside pitches. Now the coaching staff had the data they needed to get their pitchers to pitch inside, but would the pitchers execute the plan?”

So Eno sets out to answer the question of whether pitching high and inside is worth it. First, he isolates every pitch thrown by the Pirates that was 6″ above the strike zone and 6″ inside. The Pirates threw 3,409 such pitches since 2015 – 1,113 hit the batter, 106 were ball four, and on seven the batter struck out. Of the 2,000 or so pitches left, Eno analyzed what happened on the next pitch: swings and misses were up. But he wasn’t satisfied, because a lot of that was due to the fact that slider-usage was also way up, a pitch that induces more swings and more misses. So he kept going, and he found that the purpose pitch set up weak contact:

Now you’re seeing that Pirates effect. Slugging percentage goes way down. On-base percentage goes up, of course, since you gave away a ball and got closer to a walk, and it’s even understated by this OBP since a third of these pitches resulted in walks — but it does look like players don’t slug very well once a pitcher throws them a purpose pitch high and tight.

But then Eno talked to players, and they told him that it’s not likely a purpose pitch if the pitcher is behind in the count – they can’t waste that pitch.

Aha! The purpose pitch does work! But, Eno astutely points out that if you add back in the 687 hit by pitches, the OBP soars to .511, and the OPS also rises to above league average. In other words: the purpose pitch doesn’t work unless you are sure you won’t hit the batter. Good stuff, Eno! -TOB

Source: Do ‘Purpose Pitches’ Actually Work?“, Eno Sarris, The Athletic (07/23/2019)

Why Team USA Will Not Be Sending Its Best to the Basketball World Cup

The FIBA World Cup is this summer, and the U.S. team should dominate – in theory. But in reality, we may lose. We may lose badly. Why? We aren’t sending our best players. In recent weeks, every elite American NBA player has dropped out. From last year’s All NBA teams, only Kemba Walker remains; Harden, LeBron, Paul George, Curry, Durant, Kawhi, Lillard, Irving, Blake Griffin, and Russell Westbrook have all dropped out. Invites have been extended to guys like PJ Tucker and Marcus Smart. Woof! So why is this happening: 

First, the NBA season is long, and competing in the Olympics/World Cup removes a large portion of a player’s rest and recovery time each year. Plus, superstars are now paid over $40M a year, and if you’re looking at an upcoming deal in that range, do you want to risk it by playing for free? By winning the Olympics/World Cup, you receive a sense of pride, sure. But how much is that pride worth? Historically, NBA players have seemed to value an Olympic Gold enough to take these risks, but do not value the World Cup in the same way. And why is that?

For whatever reason, as a country we place more value on Olympic basketball than the basketball World Cup (this is not true in many other countries around the world). Compared to the Olympics, there is less media coverage of the World Cup, and thus less praise and less glory for the players. The games are a Sportscenter footnote if you win, and you are ridiculed if you lose. There’s no upside, and a lot of downside. Historically, it has thus been difficult for USA Basketball to convince our best players to attend. To illustrate: 

Team USA has lost five Olympic basketball games in history. The 1972 Gold Medal game, the 1988 Semifinals, and the 2004 team, which lost three times en route to a Bronze medal. They have won 15 of the 16 other Olympic Gold Medals (the lone missing Gold due to the 1980 boycott). In contrast, Team USA’s results at the FIBA World Cup (nee World Championships) are much more spotty: 5 gold, 3 silver, 4 bronze, and five times they did not medal, finishing as low as 6th in 2002.

But in his article this week, The Ringer’s Rodger Sherman sounds an alarm for next summer’s Olympics. Sherman notes a pattern we see in Team USA Basketball: (1) A starless Team USA loses in the Olympics; (2) Every superstar comes out the next Olympics and dominates the world en route to Gold; (3) A few superstars stay home in the following Olympics, having already won a Gold previously, but the team still wins Gold, though less impressively; (4) Team USA’s talent level is way down, but they eek out the Gold; (5) A starless Team USA loses in the Olympics. Repeat.

So where on that cycle will we be in 2020? At this point, it appears either 4 or 5. If we sent this year’s World Cup roster to the 2020 Olympics, we will be lucky to medal. It will be up to Team USA to convince the NBA’s top stars, almost all of whom have won one or two or even three Gold Medals to come back out in 2020. Given what’s at stake for the players, though, it will not be an easy sell. -TOB

Source: The Life Cycle of Team USA Basketball”, Rodger Sherman, The Ringer (07/24/2019)

Video of the Week

-Tour de France rider signs his autobiography for a fan. Haaah

Tweet of the Week

Like what you’ve read? Let us know by following this blog (on the right side, up near the top), or:

Email: 123sportslist@gmail.com

Twitter: @123sportsdigest


Instagram: @123__sports

“I’m not going for bulk, I’m going for tone.”

-Michael Scott

Week of July 19, 2019

Maxine Fischer

20 Years Later: I Feel You, Jean

This week marks the twenty year anniversary of the following. Don’t scroll past it. Watch the entire comedy. Peter Alliss’ commentary on the video is absolute poetry: 

We just remember the highlight. We rarely remember the leadup. Elizabeth Nelson writes the hell out of this retrospective on Jean Van de Velde’s collapse at the (British) Open. On the topic of meltdowns, she sets the stage and efficiently calls out why this one has legs. 

Many of the most famous meltdowns in golf happened to great players—Phil Mickelson at Winged Foot or Rory McIlroy at the Masters in 2012. Whereas, Jean Van de Velde was not reaching his potential, he was dramatically overachieving for 71 holes, and then he regressed to the mean after that.

And later: 

All week, Carnoustie had proved a miserable challenge. At the start of the final round, Van de Velde was the only player at level par—everyone else was over. Two-way winds, punitive rough, and a diabolical setup made the course veritably unplayable for many of the world’s best. Sergio Garcia wept after shooting an 89 in the first round. Tiger Woods entered Sunday tied for fourth, but at seven shots over par. 

And yet Jean Van de Velde, of all the field—which included nearly every highly ranked player in the world—had forged a path. The first 17 holes of his final round were a roller coaster: He had lost a five-shot lead to Craig Parry by the 11th, regained a two-stroke advantage on the 12th and then managed to be three strokes clear when he stepped up to the tee box at the last. And he’d had his share of good fortune—even his far-flung tee shot had come up just short of the water hazard. “Some golfing god is with him,” Alliss intoned gravely. But golfing gods are notoriously mercurial.

“His first shot was way out near the 17th hole, and it nearly went in the water,” Murray says. ”And so after that you figure he’s just going to wedge his second into play, get it up near the hole and win in extremely boring fashion. Instead, he takes out his 2-iron.”

For professionals and weekend hackers alike, the 1- and 2-iron are clubs incredibly difficult to control—so much so that they have largely been replaced by hybrid woods. Former pro Lee Trevino once famously said that if you find yourself caught on a golf course during a lightning storm, “Hold up a 1-iron. Not even God can hit a 1-iron.” Van de Velde had simple options and three strokes to play with. He could have essentially taken a knee and run out the clock. But where’s the fun in that? Instead he called a hook-and-ladder play.

The collapse is all but complete, but because this ain’t a movie, he makes the damn putt to force the playoff. “Please give him one good putt. Please” the Alliss pleads. Van de Velde not only holes it, he drills the S.O.B. center cut with plenty of pace. It’s as gutsy a putt as you’ll ever see. 

Of course, it was all for not. Jean Van de Velde did not prevail in the playoff. Some other guy won. A guy we will never remember and whose name is worth no more than a meager parenthetical (Paul Laurie).  

I liked this story because it gave me reason to review something that held as a blurry polaroid in my sports memory. It taught me something new about an event of which I thought I had the gist, and it did so with compelling language, fun anecdotes, and it reminded me that this was not an icon melting down; this was a guy who maybe knew this was is one shot and wanted to win it with style. In Nelson’s words, “Epic in scale and preordained to end badly, it is hubris and catharsis and all of the elements of Greek tragedy mainlined into one par four.”

Goddamn, that’s a hell of a line. – PAL 

Source: Sink or … Swim? Remembering Jean Van de Velde’s British Open Meltdown, 20 Years Later”Elizabeth Nelson, The Ringer (07/17/2019)

TOB: Loved this, too – and if you want to see more of Van de Velde’s collapse, including some great stuff from him in the present offering his perspective on it, check out his episode of “Losers” on Netflix (I also highly recommend the curling episode).

Strike Three, You’re…Not Out.

Last week, we posted a story about MLB experimenting with wacky rule changes in the independent Atlantic League; specifically – allowing batters to steal first base on a dropped pitch at any point in the count, not just on strike three. As Phil and I discussed the rule, I wondered aloud as to why the dropped third strike rule even exists. 

To the non-baseball fans, a primer: If a catcher does not cleanly catch a pitch that results in strike three, and first base is open or there are two outs, the runner can try to “steal” first by running to first base before he is either tagged or a defensive player touches first base while in possession of the ball. Interestingly, the player is not out BUT the pitcher is still credited with a strikeout. So, if you’d like some good bar trivia to keep in your back pocket: the maximum number of strikeouts in an inning is not three (or 27 in a 9-inning game), but is in fact infinite.

Now that we’re all on the same page, back to the question of why this rule exists. Baseball has some weird rules, but you can usually figure out why the rule exists by playing the alternative out to its extreme conclusion: It’s usually trying to prevent something from happening that people decided was unfair. For example, the infield fly rule exists because defenders intentionally let routine fly balls drop to the ground in order to get a double play, instead of taking the out. And why is a foul bunt with two strikes an automatic out? To prevent batters from just holding their bat out to waste pitches. But why the dropped strike three rule?Here are the official MLB rules covering the topic:

6.05 A batter is out when— … (b) A third strike is legally caught by the catcher…

6.09 The batter becomes a runner when— … (b) The third strike called by the umpire is not caught, providing (1) first base is unoccupied, or (2) first base is occupied with two out…

I asked Phil if he had any idea what the rule is trying to prevent. He did not. I racked my brain and could not for the life of me understand the rationale. So I did what any curious person does in the 21st Century: I went to Google. You will not be shocked to hear I’m not the first person to wonder this, but I am happy to report I found the answer. As the writer, Richard Hershberger, asks: 

Why is this? What purpose does it serve? If it is a penalty for wild pitching or poor catching, why only on the third strike? The rule seems inexplicably random.” 

But Herhberger answers the question, and I gotta say – it’s a fascinating one. Here’s Hershberger:

The answers to these questions lie in the very early days of baseball.… The story begins in an unexpected source: a German book of children’s games published in 1796 titled Spiele zur Uebung und Erholung des Körpers und Geistes für die Jugend, ihre Erzieher und alle Freunde Unschuldiger Jugendfreuden (“Games for the exercise and recreation and body and spirit for the youth and his educator and all friends in innocent joys of youth”) by Johann Christoph Friedrich Gutsmuths

The game described by Gutsmuths is an early form of baseball, with some notable differences:

Prominent among them is that there are only swinging strikes. Called strikes are as yet far in the future….Less obvious is that there was no strikeout in the modern sense. …The pitcher in Gutsmuths stands close to the batter, five or six steps (fünf bis sechs Schrit) away. He tosses the ball to the batter in a high arc (in einem gestrecken Bogen: literally “in a stretched bow”). There are no called strikes or balls. The pitcher is not required to deliver the ball to any particular spot, nor the batter to swing at any given pitch, but neither is there any incentive for the pitcher to toss a purposely ill-placed ball, or the batter to refuse to swing at a well-placed ball.

This presents a problem. If the pitcher proves so inept that he cannot make a good toss, he can be replaced by a more capable teammate. But what about an inept batter? The game can be brought to a halt by a sufficiently incompetent batter, unable to hit even these soft tosses. The solution is to add a special rule. The batter is given three tries to hit the ball (Der Schläger hat im Mal drei Schläge.) On his third try, the ball is in play whether he manages to hit it or not. He has to run toward the first base once he hits the ball, or he has missed three times (oder hat er dreimal durchgeschlagen). Either way, any fielder, including the pitcher, can retrieve the ball and attempt to put the batter out by throwing it at him. Thus a missed third swing is equivalent to hitting the ball.

And…now I get the rationale, and as usual it did stem from trying to prevent something. As explained by Herberger:

This solution is very inclusive. It allows even the hapless batter to join in the fun of running the bases and having the ball thrown at him, which a harsher penalty of an automatic out would deny him. Gutsmuths points out that the batter is at a disadvantage with a missed third swing, since the pitcher is close at hand to pick up the ball and throw it at him (und da der Aufwerfer den Ball gleich bei der Hand hat, so wirft er gewöhnlich nach ihm), so the batter’s ineptitude is penalized, but the fielding side still has to work for the out.

Hershberger goes on to explain how the rule was incorporated into American baseball in the 19th Century (it’s also fascinating). I’m so happy I know this now, and I hope you also put this in your back pocket for a rainy bar trivia day. As we said last week:


Source: The Dropped Third Strike: The Life and Times of a Rule”, Richard Hershberger, Society for American Baseball Research (Spring 2015)

PAL: Is this our first 1-2-3 post in subtitles? Goddamn, TOB; become a P.I. already. Impressive

Get A Dog Already

Maxine Fischer will likely be gone by the time you read this. I’m not entirely sure why I’m compelled to share this with you. Chances are, seeing as we have a blog here in 2019, I over-share. Could be, as my wedding inches closer by the day, that I’m in a stock-taking mode. One thing’s for sure: this isn’t an update about putting her down.

This is a note to twenty-somethings out there considering whether or not to get a dog, written by a guy who just spent 12+ years caring for and living with a stubborn, persistent, trying, needy, ill-trained, cavalier, loving, patient, large, strong, and – in the end – ill friend. 

So, to those twenty-somethings out there: just do it. Go to the pound or rescue and say yes. That’s it. 

Set the pup on the passenger seat and drive home. You don’t need to know anything else. I promise you’ll figure out the rest. 

It will be expensive at a time when you really don’t have any money. It will make finding an apartment that much more difficult at a time when you shouldn’t be too picky. Friends will be super enthusiastic about watching the dog before you get a dog, but – through no fault of their own – friends are busy a lot, too (and the ones that do: shower them with beers and dinners out). It will mean leaving happy hour before you want to sometimes, and it will mean picking up about 7500 poops (2 a day for 10 years, with a little extra added for diarrhea days). You will get frustrated, angry, flabbergasted with that dog. It will destroy something important. And, at the end of the night, just as you’re about to slide into bed, that GD dog will have to go to the bathroom once more. 

Also, you’ll learn that a reason to come home is better than a reason to stay out. A reason to get up is better than a reason to sleep in. A walk with the dog is the best way to get to know your neighbors and neighborhood. Playing fetch is the anecdote to a shit day at work. The parks around you are beautiful and thoughtfully designed. You will talk to your family more, because you will call them while you walk the dog. You will feel loved in a way you’ve never felt before. 

Maybe it’s because we don’t have kids yet. It’s probably that. Max was just the first life I was responsible for, and at the risk of sounding melodramatic to all the parents out there, that’s something that will stick with me. 

Yep, I know this is a sports blog, but we’ve been doing this for over five years now, and I like to think people read because they want to hear want we have to say, to hear what we think is good and worth sharing. More than sports, I think it’s about a small group of people interested in what TOB and I have to share. I’m putting my dog down. She made me a more loving person. That’s a story I want to share this week.

Things are gonna be off without you, buddy. Natalie and I are really going to miss you. – PAL

TOB: Nice tribute to a great dog, Phil. I’ll miss getting into your car as she slowly and begrudgingly vacated her spot in the front seat, I’ll miss her god awful farts, and I’ll miss her relentless pursuit of a belly rub.

Video of the Week

Tweet of the Week

PAL Song of the Week – Starship – “Nothing’s Gonna Stop Us Now”

Like what you’ve read? Let us know by following this blog (on the right side, up near the top), or:

Email: 123sportslist@gmail.com

Twitter: @123sportsdigest


Instagram: @123__sports

People will never be replaced by machines. In the end, life and business are about human connections. And computers are about trying to murder you in a lake. And to me the choice is easy.

-M.G. Scott

Week of July 12, 2019

NFL player Josh Norman leaping over a bull at Pamplona.

A Bum and His Boch 

The Giants may be on the verge of trading Madison Bumgarner, a pitcher who helped win three World Series titles, and practically won the third all on his own. Some fans are practical: He’ll be a free agent, he’ll cost a lot, the team needs to rebuild by replenishing the farm system, and he’s one of the few marketable assets. Other fans are emotional: It’s Bummy! Don’t you remember the 2014 World Series? He’s still only 28. If we can turn this around in 2-3 years, he’ll still be young enough to contribute.

I’m in the middle. I absolutely want to restock the farm system, and realize that trading Bum, and 

not re-signing him, is our best option to continue doing so. But damn, I will be sad when it happens. Here’s what Phil wrote about him after the 2014 World Series:

Have you heard the theory about how the indigenous people couldn’t see the ships when Columbus hit landfall on the Americas? The theory is that the ships were so out of their realm of reality that they couldn’t process what was taking place before them. They couldn’t see the ships! Whether or not that’s true (I don’t buy it), that’s how I felt watching Madbum last night. I knew it was exceptional, but I couldn’t process it. Even when you tell me the numbers (.25 ERA in 36 WS innings…what the hell?), it still doesn’t process. I really don’t think we’ll ever, ever see a WS pitching performance like that again.

I just can’t let that go. And if we let him go and the prospects don’t amount to much, which is a very real possibility! (My headline there: Why You Should Temper Your Excitement If Your Team Trades a Star For a Few Top Prospects”), I will be pretty god damn upset.

But if I feel that way, as do so many other Giants fans, imagine how the guy who has managed him feels: Bruce Bochy. Bochy is retiring after this season, so it probably lessens the sting of Bumgarner leaving. But he also probably would prefer to finish his career with Bum on the bump, ya know? Bochy is not shy about expressing his love for the guy he managed from a 20-year old rookie to a World Series hero:

“With Madison, it’s a desire to be the best he can be,” Bochy said. “I love this man so much and I’ll never forget what he did for me, for us. Nah, he’s special, man. This is one … I’m really going to miss.”

I love this article by Baggarly, because he gets two stoic men to open up. But he also tells us things that we can’t know, because we don’t spend every day at the park:

It is an everyday sight whenever the Giants take batting practice: Bumgarner spends so much time at Bochy’s side, the two of them leaning against the back of the cage, that you might assume the man with No. 40 stretching across his broad back and the bristle of hair poking out from his hat is the hitting coach and not the No. 1 starting pitcher.

They might be talking about the hitter in the cage. They might be talking about last night’s game or how they should pitch an opponent on a hot streak. They might be talking about hunting or fishing or whether Bochy should build on that family farmland he inherited in North Carolina, just outside a sleepy little town called Wade.

“What’s talked about the most,” said Bumgarner, “is baseball.

As you read, you start to realize – this isn’t just manager/player. It’s not quite father/son, either. It’s two dear friends who share a love for the game they play. It’s one of the things I miss most as an adult – being able to compete and play the games I love with my friends. For their sake, and my own, I hope the Giants hold onto Bum, and he and Boch get to compete together for a couple more months. -TOB

Source: “‘He’s All We’ve Ever Known’: Madison Bumgarner and Bruce Bochy Near the End of Their Working Relationship, But Their Friendship Will Endure”, Andrew Baggarly, The Athletic (06/24/2019)

PAL: You nail it, TOB. This right here is the fan experience: “It’s one of the things I miss most as an adult – being able to compete and play the games I love with my friends. For their sake, and my own, I hope the Giants hold onto Bum, and he and Boch get to compete together for a couple more months.”

When you have “A Guy” – and each franchise can only hope to have a few in the entire existence of a franchise – it’s hard to let go of seeing him on the mound in a Giants jersey for some prospects. And you’re right; there’s no guarantee any of the prospects will amount to much beyond serving as an asset. 

Bumgarner represents the absolute apex of what a fan hopes to get out of a player. Home-grown talent. The young buck at the beginning of the dynasty. A career defining ‘moment’ (he’s so good that his moment lasted an entire postseason in 2014). Add to it that SF and Bum are an unlikely combination: a country-strong, lift-kit Ford truck driving red-ass in the land of scooters. And all of this while the more heralded talent for the rival down south – Clayton Kershaw – won nothing but individual awards. 

So yeah, I say keep him. He’s not old. Rebuild this thing, and let him be the bridge to the next era. 



I Don’t Hate This: Stealing First 

I’m usually the curmudgeon when it comes to changing baseball. Don’t change a thing. RBI is a meaningful stat. If I’m being honest, when I see someone hitting over .300 I all but concede that he’s a good hitter. 

But this idea is a radical one, and I friggin’ love it. MLB is using the Atlantic League (an independent league) as its lab, testing out rule changes and seeing their impact. In last week’s Atlantic League All-Star Game, the home plate ump had an AirPod on and ball and strike calls were made by a software. 

But that’s not even close to the most interesting rule change. Starting in the second half of the season, players will be allowed to steal first base. What the hell does that mean, you ask?

“Any pitch on any count not caught in flight will be considered a live ball, and a batter may run to first base, similar to a dropped third strike”

It doesn’t take much to see how this could really add an action-packed wrinkle to a largely stationary game. Per Yahoo’s Chris Cwik:

The rule would drastically alter the game if it is adopted in MLB. Players like Billy Hamilton might suddenly gain extra value. If a ball gets away, he can easily make it to first base. Given his speed, he’ll probably steal second base too.

Not only that, but players like Hamilton might see fewer breaking balls as a result of the new rule. If pitchers fear wild pitches or passed balls, they might serve up more fastballs to players with elite speed. In Hamilton’s case, that would be a good thing. He hits fastballs and sinkers much better than breaking stuff.

I love this. I love the idea of speed becoming much more valuable in a game dictated by power (pitching and hitting). I also love the late-game situations this would create.

Let’s say, I don’t know, the Twins are down by 2 in the ninth with 1 runner on base, and the old, slow, definitely-not-on-something Nelson Cruz is up. Cruz has 16 home runs, and he’s looking go boom. That’s why he’s still in the league – to hit home runs and to sport a haircut that he’s 17 years too old to sport. The pitcher throws one that gets away from the catcher early in the count. Does Cruz take first or stay put to try go boom on the next pitch? Does the pitcher, knowing that Cruz gets paid to hit for power, try to entice him to take first base? 

These are fun scenarios to think about, and this is such a no-brainer for the Atlantic League to be the lab rats for MLB. Let them steal first! Thanks for the tip, Pep! – PAL

Source: MLB will experiment with stealing first base in Atlantic League”, Chris Cwik, Yahoo Sports (07/10/2019) 


It’s Freaky Friday, y’all. While I’m ready for RoboUmps, this rule change has me spooked. It’s such a big change. I’ll need to see it.

Also, if you’re like me – this article had me wondering: why even do we have the dropped third strike rule? Well, I did some sleuthing, and I’ll write about it next week.

From Fields to Stadiums: Babe Ruth, Frank Osborn, and Steel

Really enjoyed this one. It digs into how steel, along with a guy named Babe Ruth and an engineer named Frank Osborn, ushered in a new era of professional baseball. An unlikely grouping is alys a sturdy foundation for a good read. 

I’ve understood Babe Ruth’s greatness in terms of numbers, especially when compared to players of his day, but it wasn’t until I read this that I understood how massive his role was in brining baseball to the masses. He put butts in the seats. He sold papers. He’s why the Yankees stopped renting at the Polo Grounds and build their own field. And, in fact, it wasn’t a field; it was a stadium. 

Vince Guerrieri calibrates the reader to the time in question, a time when the Yankees were far from the “Evil Empire”:

Before the 1920 season, the Yankees bought the contract of Babe Ruth from the Red Sox for $125,000, the largest price ever for the purchase of a single player in a move regarded as folly at the time. At that price, the Yankees would have to draw a million fans to break even—unheard of at that point. As it turned out, Ruth’s prodigious home runs revolutionized the sport—and drew crowds. In his first year with the Yankees, the team became the first in major league history to draw more than one million fans, relegating the Giants to second fiddle in their own park. The Yankees needed a bigger place of their own—and the Giants were only too happy to have them leave, going so far as to serve them an eviction notice (later rescinded).

Before this time, most fields (they were called fields or parks, but not yet stadiums) were made of wood. A cheap material, readily available. They were small, far from permanent (much like the game itself) and pretty dangerous. Not only did wooden bleachers “fail”, but fires – big, killer fires – were far more of a regular threat in those days than they are now. Fires and wood – not a good combo. 

Also Baseball was far from a stable industry, and thus lacked the infrastructure. Never mind teams calling it quits – full leagues would fold over night. That volatility started fade when the masses to the fields. The Yankees attendance exceeded one million in Ruth’s first year, the first team to eclipse that mark. Two years later the team was building a stadium that could hold over 60K fans.

As the games popularity grew, thanks in large part to Ruth, the owners saw that they needed to accommodate (and charge) more fans. Baseball was becoming a viable business. And that’s when they called Frank Osborn in Cleveland, Ohio. Osborn earned his stripes as an engineer for a firm that specialized in steel bridges made for railroads. He understood how to build structures that could withstand a tremendous amount of moving weight in a relatively small space. 

While the steel reinforced concrete was a larger expense upfront, owners were no longer worried about leagues folding year to year. They were thinking long term. Frank Osborn’s steel and concrete stadiums in Cleveland, Detroit, and the Brox literally helped cemented baseball’s future. From 1903 – 1953, not a single team relocated.

The article goes on to describe the terrible detour of the multi-purpose,’doughnut’ stadiums that replaced so many of the original ‘stadiums’, as well as how the new stadiums have reverted back to the vintage aesthetic. Best of all, Osborn Engineering is still in operation today. 

What an enjoyable read, and the old photos are so fun to pour over. – PAL 

Source: How Concrete And Steel Built Baseball”, Vince Guerrieri, Deadspin (07/08/2019)

Little Big League: Still Holds Up!

If you asked me to choose my favorite baseball movie, I am torn. I love the Sandlot. I love Field of Dreams. But my top two are Major League, and Little Big League. We covered Major League back in April, as this year is its 30th anniversary. But Little Big League is 25 years old this year, and The Athletic did a fantastic look at what is an unbelievably underrated movie (just 31% on Rotten Tomatoes, which – GFTOH!). 

If you don’t remember Little Big League, the premise is simple: 12-year old Billy Heywood inherits the Minnesota Twins from his grandpa, who passes away near the beginning of the film. The team is slumping, and Billy fires the manager (Dennis Farina playing a Billy Martin-type character). Unable to find a replacement, Billy names himself the manager, and teaches the players to remember why they love playing baseball and in the process they begin to win games.

A lot of things stick out for me in this movie, much of it covered by the article. For example, the baseball scenes are very realistic, and the article gets into how they did that. There are some great cameos, and I get a kick out of watching them now just as I did as a 12-year old. It’s also a genuinely funny movie, even as an adult. It’s just a fun-watch. 

But it’s also a smart-watch. For example, this scene, where Billy convinces the GM and the bench coach that he’s qualified to coach the team (and the line from Billy’s friend who comes up with the idea that he manage the team still kills me: “It’s the American League! They’ve got the DH. How hard could it be?”):

For mainstream baseball, that argument against the sacrifice bunt is twenty years ahead of its time. I also love this scene where Billy enlists the entire team to help him with his homework before they play a one-game playoff to determine whether they make the postseason.

Or how about the fact that, in the climactic scene, the Mariners’ Randy Johnson comes out of the bullpen in the 9th to close the door. Using your best pitcher in relief in a playoff game is almost a decade ahead of its time! 

If you haven’t seen the movie, or if it’s been a while, I highly recommend it! -TOB

Source: Little Big League’ at 25: The Inside Story of an Unlikely Baseball Classic”, Rustin Dodd, The Athletic (06/28/2019)

PAL: TOB made we watch this movie a year or so ago. Watching him watch it and make the case for its greatness was more entertaining than the movie. 

As a Twins fan, I have a couple issues with this movie. 

Timothy Busfield? Really? That’s the best we can do for our first baseman and lead actor in a movie about the Twins? Kevin Costner’s brother-in-law from Field of Dreams, that’s what we get? 

This quote from Dave Magaden, former big leaguer and actor in the movie, about Busfleid’s assessment of his own talents had me dying: 

“He played a little high school baseball, so he had that mindset that if he’d kept working at it, he would have made it to the pros. He was a decent hitter, I guess.” 

HAHAHAHAHAHA! Some hollywood guy played a little in high school and thinks he could have made it to the pros. Of course, Busfield. 

Oh, and let’s not have a friggin’ extra wearing #34 for the Twins. You wouldn’t have an extra wearing #23 for the Bulls in a basketball movie, would you?

Also, the Rawling Pump glove is heavily featured in this movie:

Most important, TOOTBLAN, as demonstrated by Ken Griffey, Jr. in this movie, is a first grade, world class, phenomenal concept. I will be using it the next time I coach.  

TOB: I will give Busfield this: his swing is decent and he throws like a ballplayer.

PAL: His swing is a bad Griffey impression. Nah. A guy like that has to have more of a grinder swing. He should swing more like Brian Giles.

Video of the Week

^World Cup champion Ashlyn Harris channeling PAL and TOB, every Friday morning.

Tweet of the Week

PAL Song of the Week: Sam & Dave: “Hold On, I’m Comin'”

Like what you’ve read? Let us know by following this blog (on the right side, up near the top), or:

Email: 123sportslist@gmail.com

Twitter: @123sportsdigest


Instagram: @123__sports

How hard is a luau? All you need are some grass skirts, pineapple, poi, tiki torches, suckling pig, some fire dancers. That’s all you need.

-M.G. Scott

Week of July 5, 2019

PAL and TOB enjoyed this long holiday weekend watching sports and sipping tea. We hope you did the same. We’ll be back next week. Go USWNT!