Didn't Make the Paper, Vol. IX
So if you're not interested in how sausage is made, stop reading now and tune in later tonight when I deliver some lineups.
[First let me deliver a plug for Dave Sheinin's chat. If you're reading this between noon and 1 p.m., you can ask questions here, or just read it later for his insights on baseball, music and fatherhood - or at least the first one.]
Here is what happens when you work for an East Coast paper and the game you cover begins at 10:05 p.m. back home: You report and write a story during batting practice, scramble back upstairs to the press box and slam that baby together so folks who get that beautiful thud of the $.35 ink-and-paper edition landing on their doorsteps have something to read about the Nationals, even though there's no game story yet. (First deadline: 10:15 p.m. eastern, next around an hour later, final around an hour after that.)
So I had a whole story about the first month of the season, and whether it fits into the long-range plan, and how Acta and Kasten and players and stuff felt about that. Much of the stuff we discussed yesterday at the Journal.
At our morning Journal staff meeting, I suggested I do that, but then have that story morph into a game story by the end of the night. "Great idea," the staff responded in unison (though I sometimes get the feeling they're just kissing rear. They know who signs their paychecks, after all).
Well, what finally appeared in the last print edition - as well as on something called the World Wide Web that, from what they tell me, appears to be catching on - was kind of a half-hearted nod to the game, and a half-hearted analysis of the first season. Wasn't really committed to both. I guess that happens when you have 10 minutes to rewrite after coming back from the clubhouse, where I didn't have sufficient time to explore the nooks and crannies of John Patterson's brain.
Anyway, that leaves us with this: Jake Peavy made a stupid play. A really stupid play. You could argue that it decided the game. And it didn't appear in the pages of The Washington Post.
(Aside: The Journal staff and I discussed the decision in our staff meeting this morning (done by conference call, because I don't yet have the budget to bring the staff with me on the road), and we decided that I need to handle those situations better, that the idea of leaving in some of the feature material for the game story is good, but it all falls on the writer to pull it off deftly. Live and learn.)
So in the top of the fourth with the game tied 1-1 (on Dmitri Young's groundout and Terrmel "Old Friend" Sledge's homer), Jake Peavy hit Ryan Church in the legs with an 0-2 breaking ball, putting Church on first. Church flipped his bat harshly before he went to first.
Now, it did seem that Church's reaction was a bit strange. Because I was racing back to the press box to make sausage, I didn't have a chance to ask him about it, but I know he's been dealing with shin splints, and maybe he was upset about getting hit in the shin. Who knows? But it clearly rattled Peavy. Here's what he told San Diego reporters afterward:
"I just couldn't believe he acted the way he did - spiking his bat after getting hit with an 0-and-2 breaking ball," Peavy said. "It kind of got me flustered."
Flustered enough that he completely forgot to hold Church on. With Austin Kearns up next, Peavy pitched from the windup, not the stretch. Church and first base coach Jerry Morales noticed immediately, and Church waltzed into second with no throw. It was his third stolen base of the year. (Question: Why in the world is that not defensive indifference? Yes, it's the fourth inning of a tie game, and surely the defense should care about whether Church advanced. But the fact of the matter is, there was no break to cover second base by the middle infielders, no throw from the catcher, and the pitcher DIDN'T EVEN HOLD HIM ON. Shouldn't the scoring be based on whether the defense WAS indifferent, rather than on whether they SHOULD HAVE BEEN indifferent?)
Anyway, Kearns predictably followed with a hard groundball single, and Church scored the run that put the Nationals up 2-1. Peavy: "I just wasn't thinking. Stupid play by me, and it cost us the game."
Maybe, maybe not. Should it have been in the pages of The Washington Post? Uh, yeah. Kind of a no-brainer. But darn, that sausage tastes good anyway. Kind of a fennel flavor in there.
Patterson: A big step, no doubt. He only hit 92 mph on the gun once, in the first, but he hadn't done that before. And he did tip it to 90 or so a couple times when he needed to, and maintained the velocity on his fastball.
(I can't believe we're talking this much about one guy's velocity, to be honest, but with him everything really seems to stem from that. I am/was interested in seeing if he can/would adjust to being a pitcher who can't bring it at 93 consistently, but there's still time for that.)
As good as he was last night, and as important as that step was, I still would have liked to see him go into the seventh. He had only 77 pitches, and with the bases loaded and nobody out, it made sense that Manny Acta would pinch hit for him in the top of the seventh, but I wish the circumstances were different and he could've gone 100-110 pitches.
To pinch hitting: Did you see that number (and this one did make the $.35 edition)? Here it is again: 3 for 44. I'm going to print it one more time just so you don't miss it: 3 for 44. Let's do the math. Hmmmmmm. Carry the 1. Yep, that's a .068 batting average for Nationals' pinch hitters. It is, not surprisingly, last in the National League (though the Indians, Yankees and Rangers are all below that). That's not acceptable for a team that has the second-most plate appearances for pinch hitters (51) in baseball, trailing only double-switch obsessed Tony La Russa and the Cardinals.
So part of the discussion from yesterday, when I said I thought Guzman and Logan would help the lineup/defense/bench, should have been that they would at least have Ronnie Belliard as a switch-hitting pinch hitter. Right now, they are getting nothing from the bench. Robert Fick, the guy most likely to give a competitive pinch hit at-bat right now (and the guy who got worked over by the home plate ump on Sunday against John Maine, when a 3-0 pitch a foot off the plate was called a strike) is 0 for 7 with one RBI as a pinch hitter. Michael Restovich is 0 for 4. Recently demoted D'Angelo Jimenez was 0 for 12 with a walk. Josh Wilson is 1 for 7. Chris Snelling is a sizzling 1 for 4.
For anyone who doesn't understand this team - which is to say, the vast majority of people who live, work and breathe - it would sound ludicrous to say the loss of Logan and Guzman has affected things so much. The defensive changes are obvious (though I'm telling you, Church ran down a couple balls last night very nicely). But put Lopez back at second, a has-to-be-improved-because-he-couldn't-possibly-be-as-bad Guzman at short, Nick Johnson scooping balls out of the dirt and getting on-base 40 percent of the time back at first, Logan in center and Church in left, with Belliard/Young/Snelling-and/or-Casto off the bench, and you can't tell me that the team Acta entered into the season with isn't better than the one he has now.
One more thing: I noticed in the comments section to yesterday's last post about the lineup changes that some people believe I am complaining about covering this team. Wouldn't want it to be interpreted that way, and I apologize if I come off like that. It is, of course, a privilege to cover an MLB team, because there's only maybe 100 of these jobs in the country. Not bad. I do, however, reserve the right to be snarky/sarcastic/falsely bitter/etc. Should be interpreted as such at all times. I think most of you get/got that. Some miss the point. I just know that if I had a regular job back home, and I had to get up at 5 or 6 a.m. for a commute, I might not be able to stay up till 1 a.m. watching Chad Cordero allow warning-track fly balls. Believe me, it's hard to go directly to sleep after something like that.
One more thing. Really, and this is it: Is anyone listening to these podcasts? I do them after every game I cover. They seem rather choppy to me. I'm not a radio guy, and don't write scripts for them or anything. I'd be interested in anyone's thoughts on whether they add anything to the coverage. (Personally, I think the best part about them is the sound from players, so if you can suffer through my babbling and saying, "Uh," about 80 times, there's some decent stuff in there.)
That is all for now. Check out Sheinin's chat. I'll have one tomorrow at 10 a.m. Pacific/1 p.m. back home.
Talk to you from Petco. (Park, that is.)
By Barry Svrluga |
May 1, 2007; 12:32 PM ET
Previous: A new cleanup man, and a new left fielder |
Next: Lineups, etc.
Posted by: NatBisquit | May 1, 2007 1:03 PM
Because I work for Pravda (read: MLB/Nats/MASN), just like Sut.
St. Barry works for the Dark Side, which is committed to providing you unbiased accounts of the Nats season (except an occassional attendance jab). Stan definately ain't interested in that.
Posted by: ntr Bill Ladson | May 1, 2007 1:29 PM
I think the Guzman story is probably one of the more interesting non-stories we'll see this summer. Assuming he comes back and is healthy and hits better than .260 (I know, big assumptions, but really, isn't that what he's SUPPOSED to do?), we'll all just be glad to see him every day. For the last two years he's been one of the primary on-the-field (and on the DL) whipping boys... what if he was really just hurt, and that explains it all, and that he really is more-or-less worth the money the team pays him? I don't think most people believe that... but it isn't an unreasonable expectation... and it is probably one of the main reasons that people are critical of Bowden.
Can't wait to have him back... and the other guys, too... 'specially Nick.
Posted by: Wigi | May 1, 2007 1:30 PM
Man...i dont know if i want guzman back, who knows if he will actually improve our D with the injuries he's had lately. You know his bat isn't going to help our lineup. He'll probably pull a sosa and sneeze his back out next though, so i wouldnt worry...
Posted by: Chimprage | May 1, 2007 1:43 PM
This team can finish .500 but only after a pitcher can view a pop-up to the right side of the infield or a lazy fly ball to left as a welcome event rather than the onset of an anxiety attack. The return of Logan and (this is hard to say) Guzman will significantly improve the defense not to mention make the Nats not pitifully slow. The starting pitching is showing signs that it may not be the worst group of starters in Baseball. The return of Ayala will make the bullpen the strength of the team as many prognosticators predicted. Good pitching coupled with good defense will keep the Nats in games and Nick Johnson will return sooner than expected (he said hopefully) to raise the Nats to not the worst hitting NL team. How's that for optimism!
Posted by: charlie | May 1, 2007 1:48 PM
Barry: Two things to help.
a) Make the journal easier to find. Notice how if I click on DC United, I see Goff's face with a direct link to the Soccer insider. The Nat Journal needs a permanent link inside the Nats.
b) Embedding the podcast in your journal posts will help me remember to listen to it. I shell out the .35 so I tend to ignore the main story and thus bypass seeing the podcast.
Maybe there's an easier way to find the nat journal but I generally go sports/nats then have to wait for the journal to pop up.
Posted by: Hoo | May 1, 2007 2:01 PM
Barry,
I think you give the man credit for some high class thievery. Consider this parallel:
A man walks into RFK on Teddy Bobblehead day - and is offered a free bobblehead- and accepts the giveaway. This is similar to Defensive Indifference.
A man walks into the Nationals Team Store and the retail workers are goofing off behind the counter and you realize you can walk off with a Teddy Bobblehead unimpeded. This is theft.
Posted by: High Class Thievery | May 1, 2007 2:11 PM
Barry, will you please try to find out why Church reacted so strangely to being HBP'd?
(I assumed he was angry he was given another free pass to 1st base and was not able to put the ball in play.)
Posted by: BrianH | May 1, 2007 2:21 PM
Ewww, fennel. Anyway, yeah, I've been listening to every podcast (are you looking for more flattery?) ;-) When all else failed, I had to resort to talking about the weather to make the "around the blogosphere" section (should be Natosphere, btw!) haha! I think they've gotten much better since you first started doing them! Far less umms. They're my version of reading a morning .35 paper - all I have to do is fire up the podcast before anyone else wakes up and I'm caught up on quotes from after the game. I like hearing it from the players'/manager's mouth over reading it and inserting my own interpretation fo intonation.
Posted by: misschatter | May 1, 2007 2:30 PM
Podcasts are fine - listen to them every morning when I fire up iTunes.
Journal - I get to them through the RSS feed, which is the most convenient method.
Request - add an RSS feed to your daily stories. If you are an RSS centric person, its actually harder to find than the podcast or the journal.
Come down to 224 sometime and help us verbally abuse Mets fans. They enjoy it as much as we do.
Posted by: Dave, 224 Row 9 | May 1, 2007 2:31 PM
No, certainly not looking for more flattery. In regard to the podcasts, I'd guess this would be more like opening up myself to heaps of criticism. I agree, though, the audio from the players is pretty cool.
And misschatter (who's blog is at http://www.misschatter.com/janf/), you might be, um, more technically savvy than the average reader. Just guessing.
Posted by: Barry Svrluga | May 1, 2007 2:49 PM
podcasts: I love 'em and listen to them every morning when I'm walking/metroing to work....any chance you could team up with the WTWP coverage and drop some of the calls from the radio broadcast into them? regardless, keep it up. good stuff.
Posted by: derek | May 1, 2007 2:57 PM
To chimprage:
That is exactly my point about Guzman: When he played for the Twins, he could hit, and he was a pretty good shortstop. His history here has been poor, but IF that is due to injury, and IF he is sufficiently healthy, perhaps he'll hit, and be a pretty good shortstop... again. To borrow a colloquialism, it is what he gets paid the big bucks to do. His brief flash at spring training at least offers hope that is the case.
To Dave in 224:
The reason Mets fans enjoy being abused is because that is what their team has done to them for almost their entire history.
Posted by: Wigi | May 1, 2007 2:57 PM
I do like the podcasts, but find it annoying when the voice-over guy intones (to a little sound effects flourish) the name of the person who's about to speak. You always introduce who's going to speak next, and having the voiceover guy repeat it is a distraction.
Svr: "Here's what Manny Acta had to say"
Deep Voice Man: "NATIONALS MANAGER...MANNY ACTA!"
Acta:
Also, I second the comment that it's bizarrely hard to find the blog link on the washingtonpost.com site. I finally bookmarked it (belatedly) but I've spent up to five minutes trying to figure out how to surf to it. It shouldn't be that hard!
Otherwise, i enjoy the podcasts, and I appreciate that each one gives a shout out to one of the blog pages and what they're saying.
Posted by: SBrent | May 1, 2007 3:00 PM
By the way, I should mention, I thought that the Tuesday morning hybrid story, combining the review of the season to date with news of the Monday night game, worked just fine. And now knowing the time crunch you were under makes it a marvel. I have a job that sometimes requires me to write fast for a deadline, and I have great respect for someone who can do it well under that kind of intense pressure. Nice work.
Posted by: SBrent | May 1, 2007 3:05 PM
Ditto on the kudos for stitching the two threads together - I am sorry, however, that the Church quote from the early edition (which I read in my discounted home version of the $0.35 version) didn't stay in later editions ... the bit about Manny "having the team's back" was as clear a slap at the old regime (I'm looking at you, Frank) as I've seen from Church - not coincidentally, one player who's benefited more than any other in the switchover.
Posted by: CoNATStant Lurker | May 1, 2007 3:42 PM
Dr. Svrluglove - I meant to bring this up during your "We're Number 6!" blog posts - you absolutely HAVE TO figure out a way to get this blog more easily accessible. I second (and third?) the posts that this blog is impossible to find on the .com site.
Do you think the number of hits on the other blogs (#s 1-5) MAY have something to do with the fact that their link is prominently displayed on the sports page, and even sometimes on the front of the News page?
Yes, there may be a chicken/egg issue here on some level, but if Dr. Svrluglove is being even partially evaluated on blog hits, or the importance and placement of Nats coverage (both online and $.35) is being even slightly evaluated this way, then the powers-that-be bear responsibility for this outcome (#6, less space in $.35, less resources) by making them work with 1 hand tied behind their backs.
Sorry for the rant. I'm a huge Nats fan that always reads/rarely posts. Please keep up the good work sir.
Posted by: GP | May 1, 2007 4:05 PM
I only read the Post online so didn't see the deadline dilemma. That has to be a challenge and it sounds like people liked the piece just fine.
Can't decide on the Guzman/Logan return. I'm hard pressed to think of a ball Church has failed to get that Logan could have (anyone??). Lopez is generally not a great defensive SS but Guzman has not been either while w/ the Nats. Lopez is hitting about what Guzman did w/ the Twins. I do like having Belliard as a PH if Guzman starts. Logan is the mystery to me, will he hit better than the LF spot has so far? That's not a high bar. But that shift doesn't put a very good hitter on the bench to PH. I think it will just about be a wash really w/ a slight bump from having Belliard off the bench. I have been VERY happy w/ Belliard and Young and have to think they will both be traded to contenders by Sept, which would be a smart move.
Noticed that Hanrahan is dominating at Columbus, if Chico keeps struggling, they really need to give Hanrahan a look at let Chico pitch at AAA for a while which would not be a sign of failure to him. He's young and never pitched above AA, let him keep improving in the minors, no shame in that move for him.
After my tongue-lashing from Thunderstruck yesterday, I have to give Patterson his props!! What a fantastic game. Out-dueled a true ace and got timely hitting from the offense. Very encouraging. "Historically bad" teams don't win ANY games like that. Agree with whoever said they could even approach .500 this year.
Posted by: mlwagnercpa | May 1, 2007 4:10 PM
Love the podcasts, Barry. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 4:41 PM
Your website is IMPOSSIBLE to find on the Post site. Tried several times. Never could find it. Every day I go through misschatter website which I bookmarked. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Paul - Bethesda | May 1, 2007 4:53 PM
Loved the podcast for the win over the Padres. First time I've listened, and the link from the Nats blog got me there. (Great job with the links, Barry!) I will listen again in the future.
Is the only link from the Nationals page?
For the Post's sake, are you trying to put advertisements on the website when listening on line and the Quicktime player is running? Nothing else there other than the player, so an ad would actually make it more interesting to look at.
Posted by: Podcast fan | May 1, 2007 4:55 PM
ESPN is reporting a rumor that Cordero's on the trading block. I think we all know it's a possibility at some point (despite the recent blown saves), but have you heard anything recently that you can share with us, Barry? Thanks for the great reporting/journal!
Posted by: CJ | May 1, 2007 5:09 PM
I'm a fan of the podcasts especially the clips of player/manager sound bites.
Also, please keep up the sarcasm. We love it.
Posted by: Fan O' Barry | May 1, 2007 5:31 PM
Cordero "on the block": Not really sure what that means. But yes, I've talked about this recently with some people who would know, and indeed Cordero could be had for the right price. But that hasn't changed from the winter or the spring. The question, as with any deal, is what is the right price?
I really wouldn't be surprised either way -- if Cordero was on this team at season's end, or if he was traded.
Posted by: Barry Svrluga | May 1, 2007 5:33 PM
Hi Barry,
... good to hear from you again. Let's get this out of the way right now: Explanation about the 'stayin' up late' remark received with thanx.
... now today, I'm intrigued by your statement "For anyone who doesn't understand this team - which is to say, the vast majority of people who live, work and breathe ...", I would invite you to elaborate on just who these people are, who don't understand the team. Perhaps you might frame your response around a definition of the word 'understand'
... podcasts: I listen to each one religiously. They are great, although rather hyped up. The last video one did get de-railed over kibitzing banter about shirts, but when the Nats are not providing much to discuss, what can you do. The only problem I have is with the audio reports. Please understand this: we don't need a 'player name intro' every time we get a sound bite.
final word: be 'snarky and surly' all you want. Just remember that when you are, the natural reaction by the readers is to assume they are somehow to blame for your ill-tempered state. Of course that's not true, but it is the gut reaction.
Posted by: david f watts | May 1, 2007 6:09 PM
Hypothetical Question:
Cordero is traded for Magic Beans. Who is the new closer?
Posted by: Wigi | May 1, 2007 6:11 PM
Rauch!
Posted by: misschatter | May 1, 2007 7:19 PM
Barry,
Please be snarky and sarcastic. Its part of your charm and, to steal a phrase from your current imployer, if they dont get it then they dont get it.
As for the nats journal... i find it fine, but i know where to look and stumbled upon it accidentally in spring training. You'll definately get more hits if you get a big link somewhere on the sports page or even just a big one on the nats site.
As for Guz and Nook, everything will definately improve, the pitching will continue to get better, the bats will fall in line and in no time at all this could be a not miserable team. However, shortly after that the nats will trade away anything that works well. That's the plan for this year. They want to lose! If we go .500 then we've done something wrong. We WANT to be barely the worst team in baseball so that we can draft another Zimm like player. If you dont like it then root for the o's where they are perennial spenders and losers.
Me, im hoping and waiting for the plan to pay off and when i get back from australia ill go see several games a week to watch my lovable losers break my heart. Its more fun that watching them move somewhere else.
Posted by: Nat Fan Down Under | May 1, 2007 7:33 PM
Cordero is traded for Magic Beans. Who is the new closer?
Bill Bray!
. . . no? Damn.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 1, 2007 8:00 PM
I understood the phrase "anyone who doesn't understand the team" to mean those people who go to some games, even wear the curly w hat around town, but haven't followed the sports page or read anything about The Plan. I know lots and lots of these people and they simply think the team stinks. period. I'm always a little shocked and frustrated too when I talk to them because frankly, most of my baseball conversations have been here on the Journal-where everyone DOES know about the team, the plan, and the myriad reasons they look like they stink but don't really. Anyway, Barry may have thought something else by that phrase, but I'm guessing that's what he means.
Posted by: NatsNut | May 1, 2007 11:59 PM
p.s. put me down for the snark and sarcasm too. they're my main reasons for returning day in and day out.
Posted by: NatsNut | May 2, 2007 12:01 AM
Great post, Barry. Really. Excellent baseball writing -- and the sausage asides work well.
One minor comment, though. You said:
"Kearns predictably followed with a hard groundball single..." to score Church.
Since when is this predictable? From the team with the worst batting average with RISP? We wish!
Posted by: Markus Kamau | May 2, 2007 1:44 AM
Old-fashioned, but I read the paper (and the .com) to find out what happened, or get something I don't know. And for me, the sarcasm thing generally comes across as annoying and juvenile. Maybe it's a generational thing, maybe it's just having had to deal with too many people whose only joy in life is breaking other people's toys. Not to say that's you, I'm just saying. You're a good writer who would be better without the cheap shots.
Posted by: cevans | May 2, 2007 2:25 AM
Podcast: No, not at present. I'm not a big podcast listener to start with, and to end with I also find the voiceover guy mightily annoying. Also, I've had problems loading the podcasts a few times.
That said, when I get home (still in Germany through the week), I'll give it another try. The effort is appreciated and deserves a chance to succeed. Thanks, Barry.
Posted by: Hendo | May 2, 2007 5:55 AM
sarcasm is a must!
Posted by: mlwagnercpa | May 2, 2007 7:03 AM
Cordero is traded for Magic Beans. Who is the new closer?
------------------------
How about this Winston Abreu kid in Columbus? In 14 2/3 innings, he's allowed one earned run (0.61 ERA, walked 7 and struckout 23!
Rauch is still struggling and Wagner needs to go back to AAA and work on his mechanics a little more.
Posted by: Anonymous | May 2, 2007 10:12 AM
I am a FoB (fan of Barry) specifically because of the snark/sarcasm. The few who don't like it should read more boring Nats writers. :)
Now, for someone like me who was a casual baseball fan for most of my life until becoming a rabid Nats fan in the last three seasons, can someone please explain what the heck "pitching from the windup" vs "pitching from the stretch" means? I can kind of imagine what it means, but in real-time, how do you see which is which?
Finally, I understand that it is difficult for people who are new to the Barry blog to find it, but for those who read regularly: how hard is it to bookmark the link or memorize it? blog. washingtonpost. com SLASH nationalsjournal. Pretty darn easy to remember actually. Still leaves lots of brain space for memorizing player stats and such.
Posted by: JennX | May 2, 2007 11:43 AM
JennX -- from mlb.com
Official Rules: 8.00 The Pitcher
8.01
Legal pitching delivery. There are two legal pitching positions, the Windup Position and the Set Position, and either position may be used at any time.
Pitchers shall take signs from the catcher while standing on the rubber.
Rule 8.01 Comment: Pitchers may disengage the rubber after taking their signs but may not step quickly onto the rubber and pitch. This may be judged a quick pitch by the umpire. When the pitcher disengages the rubber, he must drop his hands to his sides.
Pitchers will not be allowed to disengage the rubber after taking each sign.
(a) The Windup Position. The pitcher shall stand facing the batter, his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate and the other foot free. From this position any natural movement associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without interruption or alteration. He shall not raise either foot from the ground, except that in his actual delivery of the ball to the batter, he may take one step backward, and one step forward with his free foot.
When a pitcher holds the ball with both hands in front of his body, with his pivot foot in contact with the pitcher's plate and his other foot free, he will be considered in the Windup Position.
Rule 8.01(a) Comment: In the Windup Position, a pitcher is permitted to have his "free" foot on the rubber, in front of the rubber, behind the rubber or off the side of the rubber.
From the Windup Position, the pitcher may:
(1) deliver the ball to the batter, or
(2) step and throw to a base in an attempt to pick-off a runner, or
(3) disengage the rubber (if he does he must drop his hand to his sides).
In disengaging the rubber the pitcher must step off with his pivot foot and not his free foot first.
He may not go into a set or stretch position--if he does it is a balk.
(b) The Set Position. Set Position shall be indicated by the pitcher when he stands facing the batter with his pivot foot in contact with, and his other foot in front of, the pitcher's plate, holding the ball in both hands in front of his body and coming to a complete stop. From such Set Position he may deliver the ball to the batter, throw to a base or step backward off the pitcher's plate with his pivot foot. Before assuming Set Position, the pitcher may elect to make any natural preliminary motion such as that known as "the stretch." But if he so elects, he shall come to Set Position before delivering the ball to the batter. After assuming Set Position, any natural motion associated with his delivery of the ball to the batter commits him to the pitch without alteration or interruption.
Preparatory to coming to a set position, the pitcher shall have one hand on his side; from this position he shall go to his set position as defined in Rule 8.01(b) without interruption and in one continuous motion.
Posted by: cevans | May 2, 2007 2:34 PM
Wow. Way more complicated than I imagined. Thanks, cevans!
Posted by: JennX | May 2, 2007 5:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.
So last night Don Sutton put in a plug for Bill Ladson and all the great writers covering the Nats. (I like Ladson and I like Sutton) But, how come you didn't get a specific reference? Why not "Barry Svrluga and all the great writers ..." Are you sure he knows how to pronounce your name? Maybe he's intimidated. You should swing by and work through some phonetics with him just in case. And thank both Sutton and Carpenter for their fine work as well. While your at it could you ask Sutton to work with a few of the relievers on their pitch selection, mechanics, etc.... He has good insight and a few of them are starting to struggle a little too frequently.