Jacoby Ellsbury tells his side of the story


Jacoby Ellsbury just met with reporters a short while ago at Rogers Centre in Toronto, according to Brian McPherson of the Providence Journal. And let’s just say that he didn’t do anything to put an end to the controversy.

Reportedly referring to several pages of notes throughout the brief Q & A —  thanks Scott Boras! — Ellsbury said that the fractures in both the front of his rib cage and the back of his rib cage all occurred during his collision with third baseman Adrian Beltre on April 11. This contradicts the diagnosis of Red Sox medical director Dr. Thomas Gill, who said the fracture in the back of his rib cage occurred when Ellsbury made a diving catch against the Phillies on May 23, just three days after returning from the disabled list.

Ellsbury said that he requested — but did not receive — MRI exams on both the front of his rib cage and the back of his rib cage after suffering the original injury in April.

“That’s where the pain was — front and back,” he said, referring
frequently to the notes on his lap. “That’s important to remember that.
Front and back. That’s what I asked for.”

Joe Haggerty of CSNNE.com gets a bit more specific, reporting that Ellsbury said the Red Sox told him “we don’t MRI bruises.” Wow.

Ellsbury said he actually landed on the disabled list in May due to a strained latissimus dorsi muscle that he said developed because of the fractured rib on the back of his rib cage. The posterior rib fracture wasn’t discovered until late May by Dr. Lewis Yocum. He claims that the initial misdiagnosis of the injury cost him extra rehab time.

As for spending the past five weeks in Arizona, Ellsbury insisted that he had the team’s blessing, according to Scott Lauber of the Boston Herald.

“I wanted what was best for the team,” Ellsbury said, explaining his
reason for staying away. “I didn’t want to be a distraction to the team.
That’s the last thing I wanted. My teammates know that. The Red Sox
were in favor of it. They gave me their blessing. And when I was at API,
every single day, they’d get a report of exactly what I did. Every
detail was submitted to them, and I was in constant contact with my
teammates, (manager Terry Francona), my teammates, my

Welcome back? Geesh.

Granted, it’s not his knee, but is anybody else finding this eerily similar to the Carlos Beltran situation? 

Video: Javier Baez hits go-ahead three-run bomb in NLDS Game 4

Javier Baez
AP Photo/Charles Rex Arbogast
Leave a comment

Cardinals starter John Lackey had a clean first inning in Game 4 of the NLDS on Tuesday afternoon at Wrigley Field, but Anthony Rizzo opened the bottom of the second a shift-beating single to the left side of the infield and then Starlin Castro reached on a fielder’s choice grounder to short. Kyle Schwarber came through with a single and Jason Hammel followed a Miguel Montero strikeout with a two-out, run-scoring liner up the middle.

Enter young shortstop prospect Javier Baez, who’s filling in for the injured Addison Russell in Game 4 as the Cubs try to advance to the NLCS …

Opposite field. Wind-aided, sure, but it probably didn’t need the wind anyway. What a shot.

Chicago leads the visiting Cardinals 4-2 as the sixth inning gets underway at Wrigley.

Juan Uribe not close to being available for the Mets

Juan Uribe
Leave a comment

Mets infielder Juan Uribe has been sidelined since late September with a chest injury and it sounds like he won’t be available for the NLCS if New York advances.

Mets manager Terry Collins told Adam Rubin of ESPN New York that Uribe has yet to resume baseball activities and continues to experience discomfort.

Uribe was a useful late-July pickup for the Mets and hit .253 with 14 homers and a .737 OPS in 119 total games for three different teams this season, but his postseason role would be pretty limited even if he were healthy.

Rob Manfred wants a new, unnecessary rule to protect middle infielders


Commissioner Rob Manfred is at the Cards-Cubs game this afternoon and the sporting press just spoke with him about the fallout from the Chase Utley/Ruben Tejada play from the other night. Not surprising.

Also not surprising? Manfred’s desire to implement a new rule in an effort to prevent such a play from happening again. Or, at the very least, to allow for clear-cut punishment for someone who breaks it:

Which is ridiculous, as we already have Rule 6.05(m) on the books. That rule — which is as clear as Crystal Pepsi — says a baserunner is out when . . .

(m)A preceding runner shall, in the umpire’s judgment, intentionally interfere with a fielder who is attempting to catch a thrown ball or to throw a ball in an attempt to complete any play:

Rule 6.05(m) Comment: The objective of this rule is to penalize the offensive team for deliberate, unwarranted, unsportsmanlike action by the runner in leaving the baseline for the obvious purpose of crashing the pivot man on a double play, rather than trying to reach the base. Obviously this is an umpire’s judgment play.

That rule totally and completely covers the Utley-Tejada situation. The umpires were wrong for not enforcing it both then and in the past, but that’s the rule, just as good as any other rule in that book and in no way in need of replacement.

Why not just enforce that rule? What rule would “better protect” infielders than that one? What would do so in a more straightforward a manner? What could baseball possibly add to it which would make plays at second base less confusing rather than more so?

I suspect what Manfred is interested in here is some means to change this from a judgment call to a clear-cut rule. It was that impulse that led to the implementation of clocks for pitchers and batters and innings breaks rather than giving umpires the discretion to enforce existing pace-of-play rules. It was that impulse which led to a tripartite (or is it quadpartite?) means of determining whether a catcher impermissibly blocks the plate or a runner barrels him over rather than simply enforce existing base-blocking rules.

But taking rules out of the subjective realm and into the objective is difficult or downright impossible in many cases, both in law and in baseball. It’s almost totally impossible when intent is an element of the thing, as it is here. It’s likewise the case that, were there a clear and easy bright line to be established in service of a judgment-free rule on this matter, someone may have stumbled upon it once in the past, oh, 150 years. And maybe even tried to implement it. They haven’t, of course. Probably because there was no need, what with Rule 6.05(m) sitting up there all nice and tidy and an army of judgment-armed umpires standing ready to enforce it should they be asked to.

Unfortunately, Major League Baseball has decided that eschewing set rules in favor of new ones is better. Rules about the time batters and pitchers should take. Rules about blocking bases. Rules about how long someone should be suspended for a first time drug offense. Late Selig and Manfred-era Major League Baseball has decided, it seems, that anything 150 years of baseball can do, it can do better. Or at least newer and without the input of people in the judgment-passing business like umpires and arbitrators and the like.

Why can’t baseball send a memo to the umpires and the players over the winter saying the following:

Listen up:

That rule about running into fielders that you all have already agreed to abide by in your respective Collective Bargaining Agreements? We’re serious about it now and WILL be enforcing it. If you break it, players, you’re going to be in trouble. If you refuse to enforce it, umpires, you’re going to be in trouble. Understood? Good.


Bobby M.

If players complain, they complain. They don’t have a say about established rules. If, on the other hand, your process of making new rules is easier than your process of simply enforcing rules you already have, your system is messed up and we should be having a whole other conversation.