If she ever undressed in front of me it would be a reenactment of the American Pie scene with Kevin & Nadia.

Yes, those two

I'm upset.

Bregman handled it maturely and with class and distinction.

I love him so much:

Just watched the replay. The fan never touched the fielder or ball. How did they get interference on that

Bregman's a sharp dude and has some interesting family connections.
Not yur tipicul jock!
Also, good chance to become our next legit superstar, IMO.

And, like me, he mastered using f___ as an adverb, verb, adjective, proper name, insult, noun and complement!
Takes years of study. But that's how competitors compete. Gotta love the Breg-man.

It wouldnt have been overturned if it wasnt a jackass in an Astros jersey.

Agree on the jersey. Dammit.

88jrt06 said:

---

Bregman's a sharp dude and has some interesting family connections.
Not yur tipicul jock!
Also, good chance to become our next legit superstar, IMO.

And, like me, he mastered using f___ as an adverb, verb, adjective, proper name, insult, noun and complement!
Takes years of study. But that's how competitors compete. Gotta love the Breg-man.

---

dude is a mvp allstar, world series champ and was in the hr derby, I think he is already at that superstar level

MAS444 said:

---

There's no question the fan touched the ball with his glove.

---

Yes it did, but that was going to be an awfully difficult catch to make. Not sure how they determined he would have made it

Might want to check lifetime stats on that one. Huge Breggo fan, but he is not a legit MLB superstar yet. No way.
He hasn't had time, yet. Damn sure on the right track, though, and pulling for him. All the tools!

David_Puddy said:

---

MAS444 said:

---

There's no question the fan touched the ball with his glove.

---

Yes it did, but that was going to be an awfully difficult catch to make. Not sure how they determined he would have made it

---

From the wording of the rule:

"If the umpire judges that the fielder could have caught the ball over the field (i.e., the ball would have not crossed over the plane of the wall), he will rule the batter out on spectator interference."

"Could" is much different than "would". If there is any doubt whatsoever whether or not he could have caught it, the ruling is going to favor the fielder 100 times out of 100 times in this scenario, as it should. Don't hate the rule, hate the glove-toting "adult" in the outfield.

JJxvi said:

---

It wouldnt have been overturned if it wasnt a jackass in an Astros jersey.

---

Yes, it would have. Bud Black challenges that no matter what the jersey of the doofus with a glove has on, and the challenge lasts no more than a few seconds, just like it did last night.

88jrt06 said:

---

Might want to check lifetime stats on that one. Huge Breggo fan, but he is not a legit MLB superstar yet. No way.
He hasn't had time, yet. Damn sure on the right track, though, and pulling for him. All the tools!

---

This is his 3rd year in the league, and his first year he was called up and had less than 300 ABs. So in only his 2nd full season in the league, he is an All Star.

If you want to get technical FWA said "superstar level" not "he's a superstar." Nobody that is sane can argue that he isn't playing at a superstar level this year. Hell he's won like 6 games by himself. He's become a 5 tool player.

88jrt06 said:

---

Might want to check lifetime stats on that one. Huge Breggo fan, but he is not a legit MLB superstar yet. No way.
He hasn't had time, yet. Damn sure on the right track, though, and pulling for him. All the tools!

---

Well since you said check the stats, see if you can guess these 3 guys

these are 162 game averages

Hits:
172
181
170

RBI's
91
121
92

HR's
23
41
25

BBs
61
78
69

BA
.276
.295
.280

Stolen Bases
2
19
14

OBP
.340
.380
.358

OPS
.788
.930
.853

No need for guessing games; don't care about false equivalence.
We have the FACTS we need to date on Alex. His body of ML work. All we need.

How many consensus SUPERSTARS have his ACTUAL (not some projection) career batting average, # hrs, # xtra base hits, RBIs, games started and lifetime all-star appearances, among many other pertinent stats? Again, there are zero actual superstars that became superstars...because of projections.

I'm a huge Bregman fan, and look forward to him becoming a superstar with the lifetime stats that reflect that rare distinction. I think he'll get there.

As I've repeatedly alluded to, he does not have enough games, ABs, etc. to earn that RARE distinction now. How can that not be obvious? Give the guy a break and let him pile up some ABs; that is, unless we have about 100 superstars in the league at the moment!

Seems superstar level to me.....

Ferris Wheel Allstar said:

---

88jrt06 said:

---

Also, good chance to become our next legit superstar, IMO.

---

dude is a mvp allstar, world series champ and was in the hr derby, I think he is already at that superstar level

---

Fun with semantics! Breg has been on FIRE since before all-Star break, like superstar-LEVEL play.
So we can agree, finally. Stretches of superstar-LEVEL play from Bergman. He could become a superstar.
But he hasn't, yet...in his less than 2 full seasons.

i don't think you're really technically a superstar until you start dating a kardashian or similar.

RK said:

---

i don't think you're really technically a superstar until you start dating a kardashian or similar.

---

Leave that **** outta here. Harden wised up, so should you.

The Angels have traded catcher Martin Maldonado to the Astros for Minor League left-handed pitcher Patrick Sandoval and international bonus pool money. The pool amount is $250,000, according to MLB.com's Mark Feinsand.
While Houston waits for catcher Brian McCann to return from the disabled list following right knee surgery, the Astros have bolstered their catching unit behind Max Stassi. Maldonado proved himself valuable to the Angels in his second season with them, and they have now made it clear they will be sellers as Tuesday's 31 non-waiver Trade Deadline approaches.
Maldonado is hitting .223/.284/.332 with five home runs, 32 RBIs and 14 doubles in 78 games. The 31-year-old Gold Glove Award winner is earning $3.9 million this year and is eligible for free agency at season's end.

https://www.mlb.com/news/astros-trade-for-martin-maldonado/c-287448548?tid=282421090

Great pickup

88jrt06 said:

---

Ferris Wheel Allstar said:

---

88jrt06 said:

---

Also, good chance to become our next legit superstar, IMO.

---

dude is a mvp allstar, world series champ and was in the hr derby, I think he is already at that superstar level

---

Fun with semantics! Breg has been on FIRE since before all-Star break, like superstar-LEVEL play.
So we can agree, finally. Stretches of superstar-LEVEL play from Bergman. He could become a superstar.
But he hasn't, yet...in his less than 2 full seasons.

---

Semantics my ass. He has been playing at a high level since last years all star game when whatever chode called him out on twitter. His career stats averaged out over 162 game season is comparable to 2 of the all time greats at 3B. He was the 2nd pick in the draft, climbed his way to the majors in a year, and is an all star mvp in his 2nd full season.

What is it going to take to be a superstar? 10 years, 5 years, 22 years?

The Wonderer said:

---

RK said:

---

i don't think you're really technically a superstar until you start dating a kardashian or similar.

---

Leave that **** outta here. Harden wised up, so should you.

---

Exactly why he said "start" and not finish. Only the truly bat sh-t crazy dudes end up marrying them.

Jesus, not even 2 full years in the league and you're trying to compare him to guys like Trout and others that have been around almost 3x as long as he has. Bregman is playing at superstar level right now, which is exactly what he said. That's not debatable yet you're continuing to try and bring up an apples to oranges comparison.

Anagrammatic Nudist said:

---

David_Puddy said:

---

MAS444 said:

---

There's no question the fan touched the ball with his glove.

---

Yes it did, but that was going to be an awfully difficult catch to make. Not sure how they determined he would have made it

---

From the wording of the rule:

"If the umpire judges that the fielder could have caught the ball over the field (i.e., the ball would have not crossed over the plane of the wall), he will rule the batter out on spectator interference."

"Could" is much different than "would". If there is any doubt whatsoever whether or not he could have caught it, the ruling is going to favor the fielder 100 times out of 100 times in this scenario, as it should. Don't hate the rule, hate the glove-toting "adult" in the outfield.

---

The real "from the wording of the rule" is not what you put in quotation marks for some reason...

Quote:

---

Rule 6.01(e)

(e) Spectator Interference

When there is spectator interference with any thrown or batted ball, the ball shall be dead at the moment of interference and the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference.

APPROVED RULING: If spectator interference clearly prevents a fielder from catching a fly ball, the umpire shall declare the batter out

No interference shall be allowed when a fielder reaches over a fence, railing, rope or into a stand to catch a ball. He does so at his own risk. However, should a spectator reach out on the playing field side of such fence, railing or rope, and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball, then the batsman should be called out for the spectator's interference.

EXAMPLE: Runner on third base, one out and a batter hits a fly ball deep to the outfield (fair or foul). Spectator clearly interferes with the outfielder attempting to catch the fly ball. Umpire calls the batter out for spectator interference. Ball is dead at the time of the call. Umpire decides that because of the distance the ball was hit, the runner on third base would have scored after the catch if the fielder had caught the ball which was interfered with, therefore, the runner is permitted to score. This might not be the case if such fly ball was interfered with a short distance from home plate.

---

The wording used in the approved rulings and example situations is "clearly prevents" ("plainly prevent" is also used just to be as confusing as possible) which honestly is a wording that can be interpreted as either your "could" or as your "would"

I stand by my statement that Bregman would not have been out if it was a fan of the other team. An Astros fan interferes there and it feels unsavory to leave Bregman at 3rd for any neutral observer watching that review in a way that it just wouldnt if it was a Rockies fan (a Bartman) interfering with their own team.

You will also notice that the penalty for interference itself is that the umpire gets to decide what in his opinion would have happened if the interference had not occurred. The fix that is actually listed for interference generally is "the umpire shall impose such penalties as in his opinion will nullify the act of interference" He can absolutely decide that the fielder would not have caught the ball, he could say it cannot be an out, but he could instead send Bregman back to second if he thought that was warranted or whatever else he thinks would "nullify" the interference.

Basically Bregman thinks he wouldnt have caught it and the Rockies thought he would have. The umpires and replay officials ended up agreeing with the Rockies, but according to the rules they were absolutely not required to make that ruling, they could have gone the other way. Its a matter of opinion with this rule, and IMO they probably would have sided with the Astros if the guy hadnt had a Verlander jersey on.

JJxvi said:

---

Basically Bregman thinks he wouldnt have caught it and the Rockies thought he would have. The umpires and replay officials ended up agreeing with the Rockies, but according to the rules they were absolutely not required to make that ruling, they could have gone the other way. Its a matter of opinion with this rule, and IMO they probably would have sided with the Astros if the guy hadnt had a Verlander jersey on.

---

So the umpire could have said I have no idea. Award bregman first base and compromise.

Quote:

---

However, should a spectator reach out on the playing field side of such fence, railing or rope, and plainly prevent the fielder from catching the ball, then the batsman should be called out for the spectator's interference.

---

Anytime a spectator reaches into the field of play and touches the ball (especially the fair field of play), whether the odds of it actually having been caught are high or low, the batter is going to get called out.