Tag: shane victorino

Mets Fan Window Shopping: Centerfield

Growing up poor — and still today far from wealthy — I didn’t have the chance to indulge in many luxuries. So one of the things I did to deal was “window shop,” which is the exercise of checking out cool stuff you really want, but can’t afford. It’s sort of a daydream, and if you have a really good imagination, it makes you feel all warm inside for a few minutes — maybe even an hour.

Since the Mets are poor, and thus can’t afford any of the luxury items on the free-agent market, we’ll indulge ourselves by window shopping this winter.

In case you missed it, the Mets have a hole in centerfield, so we’ll start there. Unless you are of the ilk that Kirk Nieuwenhuis will become more than Jeremy Reed or Cory Sullivan (hey, I LOVED those guys — and still can’t figure out why either of them weren’t brought in last year to play for the MLB minimum, instead of Andres Torres … but, I digress …).

If the Mets were a big-market team with money to spend, they’d likely consider some of the free agent centerfielders available below. Since they play in the tiny Flushing market, the Mets obviously can’t make a pitch for any. But hey, on this blog, we can dream — if only for a few fleeting moments. So here goes …

READ MORE +

Was Obstruction the Right Call?

Last night’s obstruction call is getting a lot of attention, but I don’t get it.

First, let’s look at the definition of “obstruction”, according to the MLB Rule Book, section 2.00:

OBSTRUCTION is the act of a fielder who, while not in possession of the ball and not in the act of fielding the ball, impedes the progress of any runner.
Rule 2.00 (Obstruction) Comment: If a fielder is about to receive a thrown ball and if the ball is in flight directly toward and near enough to the fielder so he must occupy his position to receive the ball he may be considered “in the act of fielding a ball.” It is entirely up to the judgment of the umpire as to whether a fielder is in the act of fielding a ball. After a fielder has made an attempt to field a ball and missed, he can no longer be in the “act of fielding” the ball. For example: If an infielder dives at a ground ball and the ball passes him and he continues to lie on the ground and delays the progress of the runner, he very likely has obstructed the runner.

Go to this video to see for yourself (skip to the :20 mark).

Or just look at these three frames provided by MetsBlog:

obstruction

Whether you look at the pictures or watch the video, it’s evident that Jose Reyes is in the baseline without the ball. Unless a fielder is making a play on a BATTED ball, the baseline belongs to the runner. The runner is allowed to flatten the fielder if he is in the way — with or without the ball. You may have seen this happen back in the 1970s when runners attempting to score would “barrel over” the catcher.

So, unless I’m misinterpreting something, the umpire made the correct call of obstruction on Jose Reyes, because Reyes was in the basepath, impeding Shane Victorino.

On the other hand, Victorino’s shoulder-throw into Reyes may or may not be illegal. It doesn’t look good, that’s for sure. There’s a slight possibility the umpire had grounds to eject Victorino for unsportsmanlike conduct — though, I *think* he’d still be entitled to second base.

The rule was invoked against Alex Rodriguez during a Yankees – Red Sox game a few years back, it’s Section 6.1 of the MLB Umpire Manual (which I can’t locate online):

“While contact may occur between a fielder and runner during a tag attempt, a runner is not allowed to use his hands or arms to commit an obviously malicious or unsportsmanlike act.”

The only other possibility is that the umpire might have called Victorino out for running out of the baseline, prior to elbowing Jose Reyes. But he didn’t.

So for everyone whining that Victorino is a “cheater” or that Jerry Manuel is justified for arguing the call, I’m not sure I agree — though I’m open to changing my mind if someone can point us to a rule that I missed somewhere.

Regardless of the what call was correct, it was a hardnosed, mean move by Victorino (some identify this as “edge” or “grit”). Earlier in the game, David Wright was nearly beaned, seemingly intentionally, by Clay Condrey. Both actions were unanswered by the Mets in the contest, but that doesn’t mean someone won’t get buzzed in the next meeting between the two clubs, igniting a good old-fashioned rivalry and perhaps a brawl (I know, I know, wishful thinking).

READ MORE +