Powered by TypePad

« Stand Up, Joe Klein, So We Can Kick Your A** | Main | California, Here We Come »

May 20, 2009



A metaphor for what the Obama regime are doing to gain power over more and more segments of the economy?


TM, Shouldn't we discuss the California voters' tax revolt at the polls yesterday and what it means?


I do like the story about the Grand Illusion though.


When the Mets lose the division to the Phillies or the Braves, I look forward to the series on "consecutive epic chokes". That does, of course, assume the NYT is in buisness in October.


Herb Mayer says we are in the middle of a revolution:



Yet another example that validates Meyer's rather grim but imminently logival along Alinsky lines;

Danube of Thought

As long as the subject of baseball has been opened, I issue this challenge: Describe how the team in the field can score four official outs, each one entering the box score, in a single inning.

I will return this evening to check any responses, and if the correct answer has not appeared I will provide it.

Thomas Collins

If Ryan Church had played for Casey's Mets of the early sixties, he would be looked upon affectionately as part of the Roger Craig, Marvelous Marv et al Mets lore. Unfortunately for him, the Mets, having won a couple of World Series (1969 over the O's and 1986 over some team that plays with a green monstrosity in left field), now take themselves seriously.

Thomas Collins

Clarice, I think TM intended that this be the California thread. TM is analogizing failure to step on third base with failure to understand the limits of the constant tax and spend, tax and spend, expand social services and generous public employee contracts, state of affairs. My concern is that the USA under the Obama Administration may be closer to the California state of affairs than we would like.


From the American Thinker Link, Clarice posted.

While conservatives have been working to improve our democracy and our free-market economy, liberals have been working to replace our democracy with a dictatorship, and our free-market economy with a command economy controlled by the government.

My thoughts-They (the liberals-who would be identified as the Communists they are, except we no longer have a free press) plan to have all this accomplished within the next few months.

Thomas Collins

See LUN for Megan McArdle's take on the California "situation."

Jack is Back!

It would be more analogous of California ballot initiative if Ryan Church was trying to "steal" third and missed the bag and was called out after the throw missed and a fan picked up the ball, ran out and tagged him.



does this involve passed balls?

I loved the Miami play. Did they practice it with the ball girls, or was it spontaneous?


Well you can't be that cryptic with a thread, that's my job. Is there any way to stop the nationalization of California, because it's too big to fail, which doesn't mean it won't fail anyways.

Jack is Back!


I like the new rejoiner somewhat has been using, "To big to fail, [then probably] to big to exist".


"A metaphor for what the Obama regime are doing"

Would that it were so, because there would be an umpire to call them 'out.' The Obama regime is more like Tim Donaghy (the NBA ref who bet on games he was refereeing).


When I played Little League baseball in 1962, I got a single, and when at first, the first baseman pulled the Grand Illusion on me by pretending he had lost the ball (the throw from the outfield had come in late.) As he shouted "Where's the ball? where's the ball?" I took off for second and was immediately tagged out. I knew in that very moment I would never be an athlete.

Danube of Thought

Matt: no passed balls. Further hint: no dropped third strike.

Captain Hate

The Mets are the biggest underperformers in baseball in terms of talent on paper versus results on the field. I doubt that Willie Randolph could put as dysfunctional lineups on the field as what Jerry Manuel's been tossing out of players in positions they're not used to playing. Maybe they need more latinos.....



How about: when runners are on base and the ball is in play, the players on base cross paths.


Empty suit, empty threat:

Note the headline in the LAT "US BACKS OFF"

Right--It was OBAMA who made the threat and who then backed off of it.

Danube of Thought

RichardUF: That doesn't get you four recorded outs.


Come on, Capt. Hate!

You're selling the recent Yankees short....

Then again, as an Angels fan I'm one to talk.


I cheated and looked it up, so I'll only say what I did remember about the 4-out play without looking it up: It has something to do with a runner scoring (or not) on a play where the third out is recorded (which happens if the third out is not a force play).

hit and run

Tag, you're it.

Thomas Collins

How about two outs, batter strikes out, catcher drops ball and throws to first to get the batter out. Does the pitcher get a strikeout and the first baseman a putout, resulting in four recorded outs?

Now that I think of it, that can't be the correct answer, because under that theory there could be six recorded outs in the inning.

Thomas Collins

One that has always puzzled me is two outs, bases loaded, ground ball down the third base line, third base runner, who has mistakenly wandered into fair territory, is hit by the grounder, so that the runner is out and the inning ends. Does the batter get a single? So that it could be the case that a batter gets credited with a bases loaded single but no runs score?

Thomas Collins

Following up on the bases loaded situation, is six the maximum number of hits that can be credited in an inning without a run scoring?

Single, batter out stealing.

Single, batter out stealing.

Three straight singles to load the bases.

See my scenario in my most recent prior post, which would result in the sixth hit in the inning. Is that correct?


Well since someone has to be out in the field or at least calling the plays honestly


To all my California Comrades. Just bought a copy of Che Guevara's "Guerrilla Warfare" from the Barnes and Noble remainder bin for $2.95.

Hey, who says you have to be a Marxist to use Che's tactics.

I'll be glad to send it along. And come the revolution, I promise to send guns, ammo, and lots of beans and rice. I'll even form a Ronald Reagan Brigade of sympathetic mid-southerners if you like.


I love the Yahoo/AP headline.

Obama, Cheney plan duelling speeches on terror policy"

Cheney's speech has been scheduled for 2 weeks, while Obama just announced his today. The man is using Clinton's triangulation techniques, and the media continue to lap it up. What a pathetic excuse for a president.


Ohhh Cheney is gettin under the Messiah's skin. Love it!


Any talk about baseball takes a back seat during the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

Thomas Collins

See LUN in connection with PDinDetroit's request.


TC - Chicago has a very talented team and will continue to be a force in the coming years (whole central division in the West almost made the SCPO).

DRW's experience, skill, and depth will prove to be too much for them (17th straight season going to SCPO). I say DRW will Win Game 3, Lose Game 4, and Win Game 5.

The article LUN does a much better job than ESPN - written by a Chicago guy no less.


I hope we all noticed this bit of base stealing:

Tehran said the solid-fuel Sajjil-2 surface-to-surface missile has a range of about 1,200 miles. It is a new version of the Sajjil missile, which the country said it successfully tested late last year and has a similar range. Many analysts said the launch of the solid-fuel Sajjil was significant because such missiles are more accurate than liquid fuel missiles of similar range, such as Iran's Shahab-3.

And that would be about three hundred miles further than it needs to be to send a nuke to Tel Aviv.

Damn I miss Cheney. If he were Prez, they would be hearing air raid sirens in Iran right about now. I can't for the life of me figure out why they are waiting. They're just going to get more people killed. Iran is laughing at BO's efforts to look like peacejesus. He's just giving them the time they need.


More Hoax and Chains you can believe in...

Danube of Thought

JimmyK's pre-look-it-up scenario is close, and maybe right on (I'll explain in a minute). Re other stuff, I am uncertain whether when a batted ball hits a runner the batter is credited with a hit. On any strikeout, only one put-out is recorded--almost always the catcher, but if he drops a swinging third strike and throws to first, the first baseman gets the putout.

OK, here goes: Bases loaded, nobody out. Batter hits a screaming liner into the gap in left center. The runners on first and second are off with the crack of the bat; the third base runner barely leaves the bag, waiting to tag up and score on the off-chance the ball is caught.

Left-fielder makes a circus catch on the dead run, whirls and fires to second, putting out the second-base runner. Second baseman fires to first, completing the triple play.

Meantime, the runner at third tags up and scores, crossing the plate before the runner is tripled up at first. But hold on: the third baseman calls for the ball and steps on third, and the ump rules that the runner had left the bag a nanosecond before the ball was caught, meaning he does not score and must be called out. All four outs are recorded on the scorecard.

I read this about 25 years ago in a baseball book by Thomas Boswell, then (and maybe still) of the Washington Post, and always of St. Stephen's School in Alexandria. I believe he claimed to have seen this happen in a game somewhere in Latin America.

Thomas Collins

The Red Wings have been dominant both before and after the new NHL salary regime, PDinDetroit. They appear to be a well run organization. When I was growing up long ago and far away and the NHL was a six team league (Red Wings, Blackhawks, Bruins, Canadiens, Maple Leafs and Rangers), the Red Wings weren't the dominant team they are now (the Canadiens and Maple Leafs dominated).

By the way, what do JOM hockey fans think about the point awarded for an overtime loss in the regular season? I think the number of points at stake in each game should be 2, as it was for most of the NHL's existence. Now the winning team in an overtime game gets 2 points and the losing team gets one, while the winning team in a game without overtime still gets 2. It makes no sense to me. I liked the old rule of no overtime in the regular season and each team gets one point for the tie. But if there is going to be overtime in the regular season, it seems to me that the overtime winner should get 1.5 points and the overtime loser 0.5 points, thus keeping the number of points awarded in each regular season game the same.

Tom Maguire

I am filing a protest of Danub's scenario. From the rulebook:


(a) One run shall be scored each time a runner legally advances to and touches first, second, third and home base before three men are put out to end the inning.

EXCEPTION: A run is not scored if the runner advances to home base during a play in which the third out is made

(1) by the batter runner before he touches first base;

(2) by any runner being forced out; or...

I would say that the third out was a force, the run never scored, and consequently the fourth out was redundant.

However, if the third out was a tag play (maybe they doubled the guy off second, then caught the tagged-up runner trying to advance to second), there could be four outs since the third was not forced.



the only problem is Che was a very poor tactician. He failed in Brazzaville, in I believe Venezuela, and then in Bolivia....all he really was was a monster.

hit and run

The four out scenario proposed by DoT does require the third out to be a tag play, rather than a force out, after the runner from third scores without properly tagging up. If the defense does not challenge the illegal tag, the run counts.

A force out could potentially negate 3 runs if the bases were loaded, the batter hit the ball off the wall, all runners score -- but the batter broke his leg during his swing and the left fielder walks the ball from the outfield and touches first base.

Usually, when challenging a failure to tag up (or a runner missing a base), the defense must challenge before the next pitch. Not sure of when they must challenge in the event that the third out has already been made (before the next official pitch, before the next team's pitcher throws a warmup pitch, before the defense has completely left the field, etc)

I suspect this is what Jimmyk had found:


From just last month.


is it something to do with a rain delayed game? Wasn't this a part of the World Series last year?


Well, Matt, I guess that explains why it was in the remainder bin huh. LOL

hit and run

[i]and the left fielder walks the ball from the outfield and touches first base.[/i]...**for the third out.***


TC - are you sure that there are JOM Hockey Fans other than you and I?

I am not sure I like either scenario (especially half-points!)... it is right up there with the Phantom Hooking Calls (every game/team) and No-calls on Roughing after the game is over (Ana-Det, Game 6 ring a bell?). I think you eliminate the 1 point for both teams going into overtime and give all the spoils to the winner (OT or SO).

The idea behind all the changes a few years ago was to increase the fan base by making hockey "more exciting" (higher scoring, faster, etc). Some changes have been good, some very bad...


Thomas Collins --

You mention Marv Thorneberry. When playing for the Mets, he hit what he thought was a triple. The umpire said Thorneberry failed to touch first base and was called out on an appeal play. Casey Stengel came out to complain, and was told (either by the umpire or the first base coach) to forget it, Thorneberry missed second base too.

The next batter hit a home run (causing Stengel to point out each base) but Thorneberry's mistake was costly as the Mets lost by one run.

hit and run

I too am a hockey fan, PDinDetroit, but I must warn you, I became a hockey fan the day I moved to Denver in the spring of 1996 (sorry for what happened, Draper).

If that helps you understand why we can never be friends (kidding!).

I had my 15 minutes of semi-infamy in Detroit among hockey fans that listen to sports talk radio for a website I did with a buddy in the late 90s. Only, it wasn't my buddy's name and phone number listed on the domain registration being given out over the airwaves and being used by thousands of angry Red Wings fans.


I'm one more hockey fan here at JOM. It is the best sport Evah!
Like TC I started watching as a little girl with my dad and brother when it was the original 6 teams. Living in Michigan, the Wings are my beloved team. Don't like many of the changes made to the game, especially the shoot-out to break a tie in regular season.
BTW, don't know if I should tell you fans that referee K. Fraser is my Bro-in-law.


The four-out inning actually happened in the majors. Well, almost. See LUN.

I am a bit of a hockey fan, of the Red Wings, in fact, being a native Detroiter.

Patrick R. Sullivan

According to Rule 2.00, even tagging the bag wouldn't have been a force out:

'A FORCE PLAY is a play in which a runner legally loses his right to occupy a base
by reason of the batter becoming a runner.

'Rule 2.00 (Force Play) Comment: ...
Example: Not a force out. One out. Runner on first and third. Batter flies out. Two out. Runner
on third tags up and scores. Runner on first tries to retouch before throw from fielder reaches first
baseman, but does not get back in time and is out. Three outs. If, in umpire’s judgment, the runner from
third touched home before the ball was held at first base, the run counts.'

Danube of Thought

I was about to invoke Patrick RS's point in defense of my scenario, but he beat me to it. Thanks much, PRS. Together we can await TM's withdrawal of his protest.


"tagging the bag wouldn't have been a force out"

Hmm, the article I linked above (LUNed here again for convenience) suggests otherwise, or at least suggests that the fact that the second basemen tagged the runner instead of the base was crucial.


-TC - are you sure that there are JOM Hockey Fans other than you and I?-77

I'm a huge hockey fan.
Love the RWs and the Penguins, but the Canadiens are my sentimental favorites from when I was a kid and they dominated.
Have to say the Canucks probably have the best name.

Patrick R. Sullivan

That's what the article says, jimmyk, but the rule book says otherwise.


no way, DoT...Venezuelan rules don't count....now we have to dig out the rule book....thanks for a very enjoyable challenge.

Patrick R. Sullivan

matt is correct. We need the rule that tells us that the scenario is scored as '4 outs', and we aren't there yet.

Danube of Thought

I'm not sure I get PRS's latest comment. Without recourse to any manuals about scoring, I maintain that four outs must be scored because three of them were registered in the ordinary course of play, and it is necessary to record the fourth to account for the run not having counted.

If you counted the miscreant runner from third as the final out, how would you score what happen to the poor wretch at first?

Thomas Collins

I guess you have your answer, PDinDetroit. There are lots of hockey fans in the JOM crowd. Certainly enough for TM to consider a primary post come Stanley Cup Finals time!

Anthony, your recollections of Marvelous Marv and Casey brought back memories not only of the Mets, but also of the Houston Colt .45s, which I thought was a superior nickname to the Astros.

OK, I can get us five recorded outs in accordance with everything said above. Same facts as in DOT's original post until the outfielder makes the diving catch. Now, assume the outfielder, having gone full tilt, starts rolling over a few times after making the catch. Also assume that the batter suffers a broken leg midway to first, and the runner on first suffers a broken ankle midway to second. The outfielder finally rights himself and throws the ball in to the second basemen. By this time, the runners on second and third have tagged up (or so they both thought) and have made it home (in the case of the runner on third) or are well on the way to home (in the case of the runner on second). The second basemen, seeing the runner from first lying on the ground, tags him out, and then goes over and tags out the runner from home plate, who is also writhing on the ground. Meanwhile, the runners from second and third have both scored. However, the team in the field makes two successful appeal plays, with the umps deciding that both the runner on second and the runner on third left their respective bases too early. Five recorded outs under any interpretation of the rules?


"That's what the article says, jimmyk, but the rule book says otherwise."

Wait, you mean a journalist got something wrong? I can hardly believe it!

Patrick R. Sullivan

DoT, we need a rule telling us there were four outs in an inning. Absent that, we simply replace the 'ersatz' third out with the appeal to the third base umpire.

Just because something physically happened doesn't mean it happened in the scorecard.

Now, there was a fan.

My kids have a doublly autographed photo of their great-grandmother standing between Red Kelly and Gordon Howe.

hit and run

[[Matt: no passed balls. Further hint: no dropped third strike.]]

Alright try this one on.

Runner at second and two outs.

3-2 count, batter swings and misses, catcher drops the ball. Batter takes off. Catcher throws the ball over the head of the first baseman and into right field.

Runner from second comes around third and heads for home.

Right fielder picks up the ball and fires it into second, where the batter gets caught up in a run down eventually being tagged out ... a split second after the runner from second crosses the plate.

But then the team on the field appeals -- the runner from second missed third base and is called out and the run taken off the board.

Well, how you score it, I don't know, but that's another "four out" scenario, it would appear to these tired eyes.

And like TC said, make it runners on first and second, both cross the plate before the batter is tagged out in the run down, and both missed a base on their way around, and both are called out on appeal.

Five outs, baby!

Danube of Thought

PRS: "we simply replace the 'ersatz' third out with the appeal to the third base umpire." Why? What rule tells us to do that? Doesn't Occam's Razor suggest that each of the four outs be recorded aas it would be in the ordinary course of events-- each event having actually happened--and in so recording each of them we account for the failure to score a run?

Mutatis mutandis, I believe TC is absolutely correct.

New challenge: Find me a discussion--anywhere, any time--of a baseball issue that includes the phrase "mutatis mutandis."


IIRC, a batter who bats out of turn can be called out after the incorrect batter completes his bat but before the next batter takes a pitch if the opposing team makes a proper appeal.

If there are two outs with a runner on first and batter A is in the official lineup to step up to the plate, but batter B steps up instead (and is not a proper substitution), and then if batter B takes a pitch and the runner on first is thrown out on an attempted steal to second (third out), batter A will be scored the 4th out upon appeal by the opposing team before the opposing team takes the first pitch.

Jeez, did that make sense? It's been 15 years since I kept scorebooks for little league, but I have seen this scenario several times. If the opposing team fails to make the appeal, batter B becomes "official" and the next official batter is whoever is in the line up after batter B (assuming batter B was already in the lineup).

If 6 through 9 are weak, a coach could send 9 in for 6 for that 3rd out. If the opposing team didn't catch it or make the proper appeal, the top of the lineup would be up for the next inning. If the opposing team makes the appeal, batter 6 is called out (fourth out) and the lineup continues with batter 7.

I don't know how it is scored with the big boys. Can't imagine an out-of-order batter making it to the first pitch without someone noticing.

Danube of Thought

First, let me go back to the TCollins scenario. On second thought I don't think we get five outs, because the runner going from home to first (the batter) is out the instant the outfielder catches the ball. Tagging him later as he writhes around on the base path is superfluous.

Hit, I think your scenario would be good for five outs except that as I recall (no rule book in hand) when the catcher drops the ball on a swinging third strike the batter can only run to first if the base is open. But no matter; change your scenario to men on second and third and I think it works for five outs.

Holly, I'm not sure about yours. I don't know if the out-of-order batter would retroactively be called out, or if he wouls simply be disqualified from further play in the game, like a relief pitcher (or pinch hitter) who is announced, then relieved before throwing a pitch (or is pinch-hit for before taking one).

Danube of Thought

Yet another revision: if it is true that the batter can only run to first after a swinging third strike if the base is open, then having the runners on second and third wouldn't allow for the five-run scenario. The guy who came in from third would score and his run would count; only the guy from second would be put out for failure to touch the bag at third.

Four outs, no more.

Somebody check the rule about first base needing to be open.

Danube of Thought

Five outs is alive, after all.

Rule 6.05 (c) reads, "A batter is out when a third strike is not caught by the catcher when first base is occupied before two are out." (This would also include situations when there are runners on first and third, or first, second and third.)

Thus the batter is not out (and can run) regardless of whether first is occupied if there are two out.

Good night. No matter what comes into my head when I lie down this time, I ain't getting up again.



Rule 6.07 in the MLB rulebook seems to confirm the little league rule. But I could be missing something. See LUN


I like to pretend I'm a hockey fan, but I really just jump on the bandwagon if a team I'm remotely connected to wins.

hit and run

Oh, God, MayBee, please, please tell me you are not also a Red Wings fan.

I suspect you are because of where you come from, but please.....

I mean, what, that makes like 6 of you RW fans at JOM.

My heart can't take it.


Yes. I am a rider of the Red Wings bandwagon.

hit and run

OK, short version...

Third out is made on a tag play after a runner from third "scores" -- but -- the ump deemed that that runner from third, who is now sitting on the bench, failed to touch the plate.

Do you count him as a fourth out? Or just say, forget it, the run never occured, because one must touch home before it goes on the board? But what if the runner failed to touch the plate and was determined to proceed out of the base path before the tag play was completed?

Heh. I'm having fun with these rules.


"My kids have a doublly autographed photo of their great-grandmother standing between Red Kelly and Gordon Howe. "

Sometime in the late 60s my father was on a plane with the entire Red Wing team. (I guess they didn't do charters or private jets back then.) He passed around the flight magazine, which happened to have a hockey theme on the cover, and got autographs of Gordie Howe, Frank Mahovlich, Pete Stemkowski, Gary Unger, and maybe one or two others. Unfortunately, I have no idea what became of it.

Danube of Thought

I kinda suspect that there's no place to go to find the answer to the question about what goes in the scorecard, as opposed to who is ruled out when and where.

But I think TM's protest has fared about as well as they all do. This Commissioner has ruled.

Danube of Thought


Thomas Collins

Thank you, DOT, for pointing out my idiotic failure to recognize that the injured batter was already out (you were too polite to use "idiotic," but, since I am referring to myself, I will call it what it is). And to make things worse, before writing that post, I had nothing stronger in my system than club soda!

Sounds as if there is a Red Wings movement at JOM. My favorite hockey teams growing up were the American Hockey League's Rhode Island Reds (I am old enough to remember going to games at the old Rhode Island Auditorium in which chicken wire, not plexiglass, was the means of protecting the crowd from flying pucks and flying players) and the National Hockey League's Toronto Maple Leafs. Now I mostly follow the NHL's Bruins, but if the Red Wings fans don't mind me temporarily joining the bandwagon bus, I'm on it!

hit and run

[[Sounds as if there is a Red Wings movement at JOM.]]

Bowel movement.


Patrick R. Sullivan

Rule 4.09 spells it out:

'When a runner misses a base and a fielder holds the ball on a missed base, or on the base originally occupied by the runner if a fly ball is caught, and appeals for the umpire's decision, the runner is out when the umpire sustains the appeal; all runners may score if possible, except that with two out the runner is out at the moment he misses the bag, if an appeal is sustained as applied to the following runners.'

Note that; 'the runner is out at the moment he misses the bag, if an appeal is sustained'

That's clearly saying that inning was actually over BEFORE the 'fourth out' happened.

The comments to this entry are closed.