Drew Hallowell/Getty Images

Aaron Altherr almost committed “Merkle’s Boner”

9 Comments

Update (12:23 AM EDT): Franco has officially been credited with a single rather than a fielder’s choice out, per Matt Breen of the Philadelphia Inquirer.

*

For those that aren’t familiar, “Merkle’s Boner” — get your mind out of the gutter: in this case, “boner” means “mistake” — refers to a baserunning mistake committed by New York Giants player Fred Merkle. Merkle never touched second base on what appeared to be a game-winning hit against the Cubs. Instead, the game ended in a tie and the Cubs went on to win the makeup game. The Cubs then went on to win the National League pennant by one game over the Giants.

Phillies outfielder Aaron Altherr paid homage to “Merkle’s Boner” on Wednesday night. With the score tied 4-4 in the bottom of the 12th inning against the Giants, the Phillies had the bases loaded with one out against reliever Jake Peavy. Maikel Franco, who had tied the game up at 4-4 in the eighth, ripped a single to center field. Center fielder Denard Span just let the ball roll by him as the game was decided then. Altherr, however, never touched second base, so the Giants got the out there. Had there been two outs instead of one, the Phillies’ game-winning run would’ve been erased. Instead, Altherr was simply ruled out and Franco’s hit was changed to a fielder’s choice out.

[mlbvideo id=”1006683083″ width=”600″ height=”336″ /]

Fortunately for the Giants, the Dodgers got smoked by the Rockies, so they maintain a two-game lead in the NL West.

For more details on the Merkle incident, Baseball Reference has a great writeup.

MLB rejected Players’ 114-game season proposal, will not send a counter

Rob Manfred
Getty Images
Leave a comment

Ken Rosenthal of The Athletic reports that Major League Baseball has rejected the MLBPA’s proposal for a 114-game season and said it would not send a counter offer. The league said it has started talks with owners “about playing a shorter season without fans, and that it is ready to discuss additional ideas with the union.”

This should be understood as a game of chicken.

The background here is that the the owners are pretty much locked into the idea of paying players a prorated share of their regular salaries based on number of games played. The players, meanwhile, are pretty much locked in to the idea that the owners can set the length of the season that is played. Each side is trying to leverage their power in this regard.

The players proposed a probably unworkable number of games — 114 — as a means of setting the bidding high on a schedule that will work out well for them financially. Say, a settled agreement at about 80 games or so. The owners were rumored to be considering a counteroffer of a low number of games — say, 50 — as a means of still getting a significant pay cut from the players even if they’re being paid prorata. What Rosenthal is now reporting is that they won’t even counter with that.

Which is to say that the owners are trying to get the players to come off of their prorated salary rights under the threat of a very short schedule that would end up paying them very little. They won’t formally offer that short schedule, however, likely because (a) they believe that the threat of uncertain action is more formidable; and (b) they don’t want to be in the position of publicly demanding fewer baseball games, which doesn’t look very good to fans. They’d rather be in the position of saying “welp, the players wouldn’t talk to us about money so we have no choice, they forced us into 50 games.”

In other news, the NBA seems very close to getting its season resumed.