England's stock of potential batting candidates for a summer that includes the World Cup and an Ashes series has been further hit by the news that Surrey's Ollie Pope is likely to miss most of the season after dislocating his shoulder.

News that Pope will require surgery on his left shoulder follows confirmation of Sam Billings, England's likely back-up for the World Cup, being sidelined for three-five months with a similar injury.

Surrey said that the club hoped Pope would be back in action "towards the back end of the current 2019 domestic season". Pope has not been capped in limited-overs cricket but could have been in contention for England's Test team to face Australia.

A Surrey statement said: "After suffering an injury while fielding during Tuesday's Royal London Cup victory over Essex at the Kia Oval, the 21-year-old was confirmed to have dislocated his shoulder. Having since visited a specialist, he has been advised that surgery would be the best course of action.

"It is hoped he will return to first-team cricket towards the back end of the current 2019 domestic season."

Pope made his Test debut last summer, playing twice against India, and was part of the squad that toured Sri Lanka. He was subsequently released to join up with the Lions, but began the season with a career-best 251 in Surrey's Champion County fixture against MCC.

Hampshire 331 for 8 (Vince 190, Dawson 73) beat Gloucestershire 246 (Crane 3-64) by 71 runs (DLS mehod)

James Vince produced the highest one-day score in England for over a decade with an incredible 190 as Hampshire remained unbeaten in the Royal London Cup with victory over Gloucestershire.

No player had scored as many since Ravi Bopara for Essex in 2008, but Vince crashed the highest individual total for a Hampshire player in List A cricket - beating his own previous best of 178. The innings was even more special for the situation, having arrived at the crease in the second over before Hampshire were reduced to 65 for 4 and struggling.

Vince put on a record 186-run stand for the fifth wicket with Liam Dawson and guided his side to 331 before Hampshire bowled Gloucestershire out for 246 to complete a 71-run victory by the DLS method.

Hampshire were put in on a good-quality wicket, with variable conditions throughout the match, and initially struggled, with Chris Liddle the chief destroyer with the ball.

David Payne was the first to strike as Tom Alsop attempted an extravagant drive in the second over and was bowled through the gate. Fast bowler Liddle then entered to find Aiden Markram edging behind before forcing Sam Northeast and Rilee Rossouw to chop onto their own stumps.

Enter Dawson, to accompany, and save the innings with Vince. Both carefully negotiated the niggling line and length of the Gloucestershire attack before fluently moving to fifties, both from 63 balls.

Together they added 186 runs to steam Hampshire into a strong position, before Dawson fell for 73 as he picked out Benny Howell at long-on to hand Liddle figures of 4 for 66.

Vince has now passed fifty in three of his four one-day innings this summer - and given the England selectors a push ahead of the World Cup this summer if any of the currently selected players suffers an injury.

This was must-watch cricket as he moved through the gears and struck five huge sixes - the pick of which saw him dance down the wicket and deposit a checked cover driver over the off-side. He reached 100 in 111 balls, 150 in 138 as he rattled his total from 100 to 190 in 43 deliveries.

Vince's assault saw his side score 114 runs in the last 10 overs, although James Fuller's handy 21 off 13, which included the biggest maximum of the day over squad leg, helped the cause.

Vince eventually succumbed for 190 before scooping to Tom Smith at point and was given a rapturous reception from the Ageas Bowl members.

With DLS altering the target to 318 off 47 overs, Kyle Abbott stunted Gloucestershire's reply by dismissing George Hankins in the third over, caught at point by Northeast, and then Gareth Roderick, caught and bowled. Captain Chris Dent was then run out by Northeast's direct hit, as the visitors slumped to 38 for 3.

Mason Crane, who posted 3 for 64, had James Bracey caught by a stunning outfield catch by Dawson, before Howell was lbw to the leg-spinner.

Jack Taylor was bowled by Crane, before Dawson had Graeme van Buuren stumped and Smith castled to complete figures of 2 for 32. Brad Wheal bowled Ryan Higgins, before Hampshire were held up by a 50-run stand for the last wicket between Payne and Liddle, eventually completing their victory with 19 balls to spare.

Worcestershire 254 for 9 (Rutherford 126) beat Northmptonshire 234 (Parnell 3-45) by 20 runs

Hamish Rutherford's third century of the season helped Worcestershire to a third win in the Royal London Cup as they beat Northamptonshire by 20 runs at Wantage Road.

Rutherford made 126 in 134 balls, adding to his centuries at Grace Road in the County Championship and Old Trafford in the first game of the RLC, in a lone hand as Worcestershire, sent in, struggled to 254 for 9.

But they staged a classic defence with pace off the ball in the middle overs to squeeze the Northants chase. At 126 for 3 after 30 overs, the home side were well placed but couldn't resist trying to force Brett D'Oliveira's legspin and Daryl Mitchell's gentlest of medium pace. The pair claimed four wicket to tame the hosts.

Northants needed 82 from the final 10 overs and Luke Procter kept them alive with an unbeaten 35 but he ran out of partners as they subsided to 234 and a fourth defeat from five matches, realistically ending their hopes of qualification for the knockout stage.

Worcestershire claimed a third win in four and they were indebted to Rutherford, the New Zealander who has proved superb value for money in his short stint. His 10th List A century here held together a clumsy Worcestershire display.

They slipped to 23 for 3 in the Powerplay before Rutherford finally found a partner in D'Oliveira and the pair added 84 in 14.2 overs. Rutherford drove Buck down the ground for the day's first stroke of note before punching Ian Holland - on loan to Northants from Hampshire - over mid-off for four and then straight over the bowler's head for six.

D'Oliveira fell for 28 - a ball that jumped off a length to take the glove to point - but Ben Cox arrived to build another useful stand to take Worcestershire to 166 for 4 in the 32nd over and well-placed. But Cox swept at a full ball from Josh Cobb's part-time offspin and it sparked a collapse of 4 for 22 in 7.3 overs; Cobb also took out Wayne Parnell's middle stump trying to cut while Rob Keogh had Ross Whiteley bowled second ball and Ed Barnard caught at short-fine leg.

Josh Tongue finally proved another competent partner for Rutherford and the pair added 59 for the ninth wicket - a record for the county against Northamptonshire - to nudge Worcestershire to a challenging total.

In reply, Richard Levi and Ben Curran both lifted Charlie Morris tamely to mid-off in the Powerplay but Cobb and Alex Wakely guided Northants' progress in a stand of 75 in 20 overs. Neither played a shot in anger but just made patient progress. But both were ground down by D'Oliveira and Mitchell and the pressure eventually told.

Cobb ran past D'Oliveira and lost his leg stump for 44, while Wakely chipped Mitchell back to the bowler for 46. Adam Rossington then swept at Mitchell's final ball and was lbw for only 7 and suddenly Northants were struggling with 111 to win in 16 overs.

Keogh and Procter brought the equation to 82 needed from the final 10 before Procter pulled Tongue for a flat six backward of square. But Keogh miscued a pull to midwicket and Holland edged a very wide ball to be caught behind. it left too much for Procter to do and the tail didn't give him the chance.

While the East gets ready for the conference semifinals this weekend, spots in the West are still up for grabs.

What are the biggest things to watch in Game 6 of the Golden State Warriors vs. the LA Clippers (10 p.m. ET, ESPN)? Do the Warriors have a defense problem, and are their title chances suddenly vulnerable?

Our NBA experts answer the big questions about this series and what it means for the rest of Golden State's run if the champs get out of Round 1.

1. Have you learned more about the Warriors or Clippers in this series?

Brian Windhorst, ESPN: Has to be the Clippers. It has been fantastic to watch Lou Williams and Montrezl Harrell dominate stretches, with the Warriors just not able to handle them in the screen-and-roll. If you watched the Clippers at all this season, you knew they always played hard, but their execution level at Oracle has been terrific.

Marc J. Spears, The Undefeated: The Clippers. This is one of the grittiest teams I've ever seen in 20 years covering the NBA. They believe in themselves even if the rest of the world does not. Doc Rivers may be doing the best coaching job he ever has, which is saying a lot.

Kevin Pelton, ESPN: The Clippers. Specifically, the ability of Williams and Harrell to be effective in the playoffs, something that's crucial for the Clippers with realistic expectations of a longer playoff run next season. Before this year, Williams had been as poor in the postseason relative to his regular-season performance as any current NBA player, while Harrell had played just 33 career playoff minutes. So their play has been pleasantly surprising.

Nick Friedell, ESPN: Clippers. They play hard all the time. As an Orlando native, this team reminds me so much of Doc Rivers' "Heart and Hustle" squad in his first season with the Magic. Like that team, this Clippers squad is made up of a bunch of players who are hell-bent on proving to the world that they could play. No matter what happens in Game 6, Rivers and his staff have done a great job building this team's culture and confidence.

Bobby Marks, ESPN: Clippers. That's not to say LA will win the series, but winning two games at Oracle is a feat that only the 2016 Cleveland Cavaliers have done since the championship run started in 2015. With cap flexibility this summer, the Clippers have used the Golden State series as their own recruiting pitch to potential free agents in July, including Kevin Durant.

2. Fact or fiction: The Warriors have a defense problem.

Pelton: More fact than fiction. Golden State's defensive rating is 11th so far among 16 playoff teams, and the Warriors have been unable to get key stops when necessary down the stretch in their Game 2 and Game 5 losses. Still, given we're talking about a five-game sample, I'd describe that more as a defense concern than a defense problem.

Friedell: Fiction: They have a focus problem. It has been the same old story all year for the Warriors. Some nights they have it rolling and some nights they don't. This group has built up their habits all season -- but they can still turn it on when they need it the most. They have too much pride and talent to think they're going to get carved up the same way in Game 6 that they did in Game 5.

Marks: Faction. The Warriors have a problem with their offense and defense. Yes, they need to get stops, but Golden State's offense has disappeared at the end of games. In the fourth quarter of the two losses to the Clippers, the Warriors shot 33.3 percent from the field and 18.2 percent from 3, averaging 5 turnovers and getting outscored by an average of eight points.

Spears: If you give up 71 points in a half, you definitely have a problem. I know Lou Williams is amazing and the Clippers have some offensive talent, but the Warriors are making the Clippers' offense look like the Warriors' offense.

Windhorst: Fiction. It depends on your definition of "problem." They ranked 10th in defense this season, the lowest in the Steve Kerr era. They have been about 6 points per 100 possessions worse in this series than during the season. But I think playing Andrew Bogut instead of DeMarcus Cousins will help them on defense over the long haul. Issues covering pick-and-roll have been worrisome, but I trust them long term.

3. Which Warriors player are you watching most closely going forward?

Spears: Draymond Green. If the Warriors are going to close out the series on Friday night, the defense will be key. And Draymond is the motivating leader to make sure that happens.

Marks: Andre Iguodala. We have seen a disappearing act from the former Finals MVP in the two losses, most notably in the fourth quarter of Game 5. In nine minutes played, Iguodala went 0-of-4 from the field with a team-worst plus-minus of minus-5, showing that those offensive woes have also transferred to the defensive side.

Windhorst: Durant's game, like the man himself, is moody. He might get ejected. He might score 50. He might shoot 10 times. He might shoot 30 times. When he's on, he's brilliant. When he's off, the Warriors are vulnerable. Add Patrick Beverley, and you have a heck of a draw.

Friedell: Klay Thompson. He seemed the most frustrated of the group after the Game 5 loss, especially after publicly acknowledging after Game 4 that the Warriors were keeping up with what the Rockets were doing. The Warriors didn't seem like they overlooked the Clippers, but Thompson's comments didn't help the optics of another bad loss at home. He loves playing in Los Angeles, and he will rise to the occasion if he gets faced up defensively a little more against Lou Williams.

Pelton: Andrew Bogut, who has a minus-23 plus-minus over the past two games -- since the Clippers went to a smaller starting lineup with JaMychal Green at center. If Golden State continues struggling with Bogut defending stretch-5s, that really limits Kerr's options for filling center minutes with Cousins sidelined.

4. Fact or fiction: The Rockets are a better matchup for the Warriors now than they were last year.

Marks: Fact. We talked repeatedly about how the Rockets were going to take a step back this season with the losses of Trevor Ariza and Luc Mbah a Moute. But GM Daryl Morey kept maneuvering by signing Austin Rivers and Kenneth Faried for nothing to strengthen the bench. Combine those two players with Danuel House Jr., Gerald Green and Nene -- the Rockets' bench could be the X factor in the series.

Friedell: Fiction. While it seems like the Rockets found their rhythm down the stretch of the regular season, the absence of Ariza figures to hurt most in this upcoming series, at least on the defensive end. Obviously, a healthy Chris Paul makes a huge difference for the Rockets, but the defensive chemistry the group had last year doesn't appear to be the same heading into another potential showdown.

Spears: Hmm, that is a very good question. The Rockets of last year were better defensively. But James Harden is even more explosive than he was a year ago, and he also appears to be more confident.

Windhorst: Fact, if for no other reason than the Warriors have a smaller margin for error than they did last year. They're not the same team, but they're still the best team.

Pelton: Fiction. I think we're underrating last year's Houston team because we know they lost to Golden State, while this year's outcome remains uncertain. Yes, Harden has been better this season, but I think the Rockets' depth remains weaker despite Morey's efforts to upgrade over the course of the season. With Ariza gone, does Houston have a fifth player to finish games if Clint Capela can't be part of the closing five? Consider me skeptical.

5. Warriors vs. the field: Who are you taking to win the title?

Friedell: Warriors. After five long years of winning mixed in with the drama of the past couple of seasons, they are emotionally exhausted and vulnerable. They have their flaws -- but they still have more talent than anybody else, and they can play at a higher level than anyone in the field. They know the history at stake when they hit the floor, and they all understand, no matter what may happen this summer, that they may not get the chance to be together again with so much on the line.

Spears: Based on what I've seen so far, I think the Warriors themselves couldn't even debate taking the field until they prove otherwise.

Pelton: I'm still taking Golden State. I suspect the Warriors' issues in this series continue to have more to do with motivation than ability or chemistry. Will I be surprised if Golden State loses? Absolutely not. But when they're locked in, the Warriors have a gear they can reach that nobody else in the NBA has shown the ability to match on a consistent basis. So I still give them better than 50-50 odds of winning a third consecutive title.

Windhorst: Unless there's injury or untimely ejection/suspension (which is a real threat), it's hard to see a team beating the Warriors four out of seven. I know everyone talks about the Chris Paul injury from last year, etc., but the truth is they've lost one series in five years, and that one took a historic comeback.

Marks: Warriors, for two reasons. First: Despite a loaded field in the East, each team will face a grueling path just to reach the NBA Finals. Will the Milwaukee Bucks or Toronto Raptors team that we see this weekend be the same squad that the Warriors will face in late May? Second: Golden State has shown the ability to deal with adversity and win on the road consistently.

WASHINGTON -- The Nationals called up prospect Carter Kieboom on Friday after the middle infielder's torrid start at Triple-A Fresno.

The 21-year-old Kieboom, who was rated the 98th best prospect in baseball by ESPN's Keith Law prior to this season, was batting .379 with three home runs and 18 RBIs in 18 games at Fresno this season, posting a 1.142 OPS.

We've selected the contract of INF Carter Kieboom.

? // https://t.co/JRRfFJwcVO pic.twitter.com/UDlX15TAUJ

— Washington Nationals (@Nationals) April 26, 2019

To make room on the 25-man roster, the Nationals sent Jake Noll back to Fresno on Thursday. Washington also moved right-handed pitcher Koda Glover to the 60-day injured list.

Despite a strong showing in spring training, including a game with two home runs off Houston Astros ace Justin Verlander, Kieboom didn't make the major-league roster as the Nationals wanted him to continue to work on his defense.

A natural shortstop, the 28th overall pick of the 2016 draft committed 26 errors in 118 games last year. With Trea Turner entrenched as Washington's starting shortstop, Kieboom logged time at second base during spring training and at Fresno.

In six games playing second for the Grizzlies, he made one error. He also had one miscue in 12 games at shortstop.

Due to injuries in the infield, the Nationals decided to promote Kieboom. Just four games into the season, Turner fractured his right index finger after being hit by a pitch while attempting to bunt on April 2. Third baseman Anthony Rendon hasn't played since taking a pitch off his left elbow on April 20. Additionally, veteran second baseman Brian Dozier has gotten off to a slow start offensively.

Historically, the Nationals have only brought top prospects to the big leagues when there's an opportunity to play every day -- as was the case when they called up Juan Soto from Double-A last year. The expectation is that Kieboom will take over as the primary shortstop until Turner returns from injury, allowing Wilmer Difo to fill in around the infield as needed.

Kieboom's older brother, Spencer Kieboom, is a catcher in the Nationals organization and appeared in 52 games last season for Washington. He is currently at Double-A Harrisburg.

On April 26, 1989, light-hitting Ozzie Smith slapped a fly ball toward the left-field line, and Giants left fielder Kevin Mitchell streaked across my TV screen after it.

After about a half-dozen steps, Mitchell realized the ball was carrying deeper than he first thought, much deeper than the TV viewer first thought, and Mitchell began to veer toward the corner. A couple of steps after that, the broadcast cut from an overhead, third-base-side camera to a tighter, field-level shot from the first-base side of the field. The effect of that jarring cut, and the effect of Mitchell changing direction so steeply, and the effect of Smith somehow hitting a ball that deep on that swing, was all very disorienting. The ball was entirely off-screen to this point, and as a viewer, you couldn't really estimate where it was anymore: fair, foul, shallow, deep, in play, out of play, catchable, uncatchable? The play felt weird, and Mitchell -- in his first full season as a left fielder -- looked as if he might be lost.

And then Mitchell shot his bare hand up into the air. The ball suddenly descended on his wrong side, either because of wind or because Mitchell had simply overrun it. His body was twisted around, his back was almost to the plate, his right arm fully extended, and he caught the ball clean in his fingers. He took a couple of more steps on the run and then gently bumped into the left-field wall, knocking open a padded gate that somebody had left unlocked.

The catch went viral. "That's got to be the play of the year," Giants announcer Duane Kuiper said on the broadcast, and according to one Reddit commenter's memory, it literally was -- named so by CNN's Sports Tonight at the end of 1989. "It was on every newscast that night, every morning show the next day and every baseball highlights package for the next decade," Giants blogger Grant Brisbee wrote. You can buy a flipbook from that season showing the grab. Sports Illustrated used the catch as evidence that Mitchell might be "the toughest" player in baseball. Mitchell's teammate Mike Krukow called it "paranormal." "Catch of the Century?" the Chicago Tribune asked at the time. "Greatest catch I've ever seen," Tony Gwynn claimed.

And, over the past 30 years, it has stayed viral. It was apparently one of the first 30 classic videos MLB Advanced Media posted when it began to fill its YouTube channel. When McCovey Chronicles retroactively named the greatest Giants GIFs of the pre-GIF era, the Mitchell catch was at the top. There's a bobblehead of the catch and baseballs signed by Mitchell with the inscription "Catch 4-26-89." Urban Dictionary claims the phrase "Kevin Mitchell" has its very own dirty meaning originating from that catch. (No link to that one!) "The older you get, the more people remind you about things," Mitchell told Henry Schulman in 1999. "But they never remind me of my year in '89. They always remind me of my catch."

It's one of the most famous catches in baseball history -- maybe the second-most famous, and certainly one of the top 10. But it's also confounding. Most extraordinary fielding highlights involve athletes doing something we ourselves tried to do at some point in our baseball or softball experience, but couldn't possibly. Ramon Laureano's highlight catch this week, for example, featured Laureano leaping higher than we possibly could, making a catch we couldn't possibly make, and then throwing a baseball much farther than we could possibly throw. Given 10 tries I wouldn't be able to do what Laureano did, but even given 10 million tries, I still couldn't. Mitchell's catch is something else: It's a famous highlight because it involves something we never even tried to do. That almost nobody ever tried to do.

To understand it, then, requires I try it. And to try it requires first understanding it.

1. Would it hurt?

In 2014, a guy on Twitter posted a picture of his palm after he tried to catch a Giancarlo Stanton home run. Half of his hand was blackened, and his ring and middle fingers were swollen like hot dogs left too long on a grill. "Honestly, I'm sort of surprised this hand isn't in worse shape," Deadspin wrote, which, honestly, I was too.

But that tweet was a hoax. (The guy apologized to Stanton and the Marlins in a subsequent tweet.) In fact, catching a Stanton blast bare-handed is ... not so bad. In May 2015, Stanton hit a baseball 115 mph, and 478 feet later, a Marlins fan named Ryan Mont leaned over a railing and caught it one-handed. He pumped his fist and went back to his seat, giddy. "To be honest with you," he told us by email, "it stung a little, but I was so excited I didn't really feel any pain! I was just excited I had caught it and excited to give it to my friend!"

The ball Stanton hit was going 115 mph, but the ball Mont caught was not. As soon as it left the bat, it began losing velocity to drag and gravity; according to a trajectory calculator physicist Alan Nathan provided us, that Stanton home run was probably traveling around 60 mph when it got to Mont.

We don't know how hard or how high Ozzie Smith hit the ball, but based on an estimate of how far it traveled (about 325 feet) and how long it was in the air (about 4.35 seconds), we can compare it to this fly ball hit by Oswaldo Arcia in 2016, when Statcast had begun measuring everything. Arcia's hit traveled 331 feet with a 4.4-second hang time. It had an exit velocity of 95.7 mph and a launch angle of 27 degrees.

According to Nathan's calculator, Arcia's ball would have slowed to below 70 mph within one second of flight, and by the time it reached its apex, it would have been going only 49 mph. As it began its descent, it would first slow even more, and after traveling 240 feet, Arcia's ball (and, roughly speaking, Ozzie Smith's) would have been traveling just 45.5 mph. But then gravity would be pulling it faster and faster, so that when it landed it would be traveling around 53 mph. That's not nothing, but most of the energy of the hit had dissipated. Catching a baseball traveling 53 mph is about what it's like to catch a pitch thrown 60 mph. It might sting, and could injure you if you catch it wrong, but ... you know?

2. Would it be difficult?

So, then, to the question of whether it was difficult. I showed this catch to Jarrod Kimber, the global writer for ESPNcricinfo and senior analyst for the Melbourne Stars. Cricket is, of course, a sport similar in many respects to baseball, but with no gloves. Cricketers catch everything bare-handed.

"I mean, it's cute," Kimber said of the Mitchell catch, before sending me a series of YouTube videos of cricketers (and cricket fans) making diving, sprinting and leaping bare-handed catches.

"I like that he caught the ball on the wrong side of his head," Kimber said. "As in, instead of his arm crossing over to the other side of his body, he catches it in a way he almost has to exorcist his neck around. And maybe I have a bias against mistake catches -- as in catches where the person made an error that made it more difficult. I mean, he's misjudged it, hasn't he, and got himself into a tangle, which is why he throws up his non-gloved hand.

"I've seen many cricketers, even amateur ones, actually especially amateur players, get in the wrong position when running back to catch over their head, then throw their hand up and the ball sticks. I think we'd call it arsey rather than classy. There was more elegance in this catch, but I didn't think it was that amazing."

According to the cricket analytics company CricViz, gloveless players successfully catch 77 percent of their chances during international matches, comparable to the NBA's free throw percentage. Most of the time they use two hands -- not one, as Mitchell did -- and, importantly, this is what they do all the time. For much of their lives, they've caught dozens of balls bare-handed each day. "I'd rather use a glove, although when I played baseball I often used my bare hand as it was easier and more natural to me," Kimber said.

3. Could I do it?

Earlier this week, I went to a field in Sonoma, California, with a bucket of balls and a glove I wouldn't need. Theo Fightmaster -- an independent league GM whose playing career peaked as a failed walk-on at Arizona State, where he played intrasquad games with Dustin Pedroia -- was there to hit me a bunch of deep fly balls. I stood in left field, and Fightmaster tried to replicate the trajectory of Ozzie Smith's fly ball.

"Because we have more soft tissue padding on the palm surface, you could argue that the hand was built asymmetrically this way to absorb the use we give it," said Dr. Ben Jacobs, who chairs the public education committee of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand. "The soft tissues are somewhat effective at spreading out the load from an impact, so force that is applied can be distributed more across the hand instead of loading in just one location."

He stresses that, from a hand surgeon's perspective, catching baseballs bare-handed is a bad idea. But would he try to catch one if he were at a ballgame? "Of course I would." I took that as permission.

As the first catchable fly came near me, I groaned in dismay, anticipating the pain. I reached out for it, but my naked right hand was wary and tried to pull away. The ball deflected off the ends of my fingers and dropped to the grass. The pain was no worse than what comes of a hard high-five, and it faded quickly. The second got me in my palm, and I couldn't hold on. The third was over my head, and I fell face-first into a patch of mud chasing it. I had to extend, on the run, for the fourth, and it bounced off the top of my middle finger. That hurt. Each missed catch caused me a slightly different grunt or gasp, but none hurt for longer than a few seconds. The fifth, directly over my head, clanked loudly off my palm, and I screamed -- but more out of frustration that I had dropped it than out of pain. The sixth hit off the end of my fingers. The seventh was right at me, and I tried to catch it low, at my belt, but I still couldn't hang on.

I caught the eighth.

It landed clean against the base of my ring finger, and my pinky curled around to hold it in place. This was the most painful of the eight, by far, and the last segment of my ring finger felt as if it might have a bone bruise. But even that pain was tolerable and went away after a few minutes. I then caught four more cleanly, dropping only two. I mostly caught the ones I could get under, while the ones I had to really run after -- like the one Mitchell caught -- were much harder, bouncing off my fingers. Two fingers hurt for about a half hour, and my hand shook (as with nerves) for about that long, but the sorest part of my body was my shoulder, from throwing baseballs back to Theo. Catching a ball bare-handed wasn't that painful, that scary or -- it seemed to me -- that hard. (Theo tried catching a couple; one clipped his finger and turned his fingernail black.)

Running like Mitchell had to, of course, makes it harder. Needing to stretch out makes it harder. Twisting a body around so that one's back is almost to the infield would make it harder still. I want to be very clear that Mitchell's catch was miles harder than any catch I managed. But nothing about Mitchell's catch seemed impossible, the way Laureano's catch was impossible. Of all the great catches in baseball history, is there any that so resembles something that fans (and ushers!) pull off every day?

So, then, what are we to make of this catch?

The most famous catch of all time is certainly the one by Willie Mays in the 1954 World Series -- dead sprint, his back to the infield, to haul in Vic Wertz's long fly. But there's less consensus among Mays observers that it was his best catch. Some say the best was a bare-handed catch he made running back for a screaming liner in Pittsburgh, in 1951. Pirates GM Branch Rickey sent a note down to the dugout after the play, according to baseball writer Nick Acocella. The note read: "Young man, that is the greatest catch I have ever seen, or the greatest catch I'm ever likely to see."

Hall of Fame center fielder Duke Snider also said Mays' finest catch was made bare-handed, when Mays was running to his right in Ebbets Field: "Couldn't extend his arm far enough to catch the ball so he reached out with his bare hand and caught the ball about three feet off the ground as he dove for it," Snider said. "And to me, that was so much better a catch than he made against Vic Wertz. This was an outstanding catch, and it was very exciting to see that happen. I never tried it."

I never tried it. This is the key thing. Most great catches, as we noted at the top, are incredible athletic acts by incredible athletes. But there are hundreds of incredible athletes in Major League Baseball, thousands over the past century. Every game, you can see one do something you could never do. Every year, you see a handful that seem to defy physics. And every few years, you see one you remember forever. But these catches merely confirm what we already know: These guys are good. That's all baked in, and it's why we watch in the first place. Yessiree, they sure can play baseball.

A bare-handed catch is something different. It doesn't seem to defy physics as much as it actually and literally defies the sport. It has been 150 years since baseball players collectively decided this game wouldn't work without gloves; but every so often, a player forced into a desperate situation makes it work.

"In my entire life, I've never seen that happen," Duane Kuiper said on the Giants broadcast that day 30 years ago. "Happen" is the important word there: The situation happened to Mitchell. He wasn't a cricketer who was used to making this play in this fashion. He didn't spend even one full second of his life planning or preparing for what he had to do; maybe a quarter of a second, the final quarter-second before the ball landed. He had nothing but a single pre-modern tool at his disposal, and he didn't have eight chances but just the one. "All I could do was stick out my hand, and there it was," Mitchell said. The bare-handed catch wasn't what he was trying to do. It was all he could do.

That's why bare-handed catches hold up. These are unpracticed, unplanned, disadvantaged and desperate. They're the difference between headbutting a basketball into the basket on your eighth try in a game of H-O-R-S-E and headbutting a ball in when your team needs two points to win at the buzzer and that's somehow the only option. The key lesson from my experiment wasn't what I did on the eighth try, but on the first. In retrospect, there was zero chance I was going to catch the first one. Zero.

If you think of the question as, "Is it hard to make a bare-handed catch on a fly ball?" the answer is, "Eh, kind of." But if you think of the question, "Was that specific fly ball hard for Kevin Mitchell to catch?" then the answer is, "Yes, it was basically impossible. He had to invent something to do it." Duke Snider never even tried it!

Earlier this month, Freddy Galvis sprinted out from the shortstop position to try to catch a popup. The ball came down just a little bit too far for his gloved left hand to reach, so Galvis shot out his right and caught it bare-handed. It's the best catch I've seen this year, or will see. I'm not alone.

That play by @freddygalvis10 might have been the best play I've ever seen live. Wow! @BlueJays

— Marcus Stroman (@MStrooo6) April 20, 2019

Could you, theoretically, make the play? If you had 30 or 40 tries, I definitely think so. But Galvis had one, and anyway, when's the last time you saw somebody even try?

Mouthwatering races await at the Müller Anniversary Games as world’s top names sign up for 100m contests in London

Tickets to the British Athletics 2019 outdoor event series are now ON SALE. With another huge year of world-class athletics now in full swing on the back of a memorable indoor season, you can secure your seat to see the best athletes in the world right here in the UK – including the best in Britain – this summer.

The first of British Athletics’ outdoor showpiece events will be the Müller Anniversary Games, which takes place over the weekend of July 20-21 at the London Stadium and it promises to be another memorable occasion.

The 100m sprints tend to grab plenty of attention in the UK capital and there will be no change there after the announcements of top-quality fields in the both the men’s and women’s events for 2019.

Four of the world’s best male sprinters have been confirmed as taking their places on the start line at the iconic venue.

Having established himself as Britain’s current number one thanks to a best time of 9.91 seconds last year – the joint second-quickest ever by a Briton – European champion Zharnel Hughes returns to London looking to go one better on his second-place finish at last year’s edition of the event.

Alongside Hughes, fellow Briton Reece Prescod is on the world radar following eye-catching performances and will relish lining up in his home city this July.

A world championships finalist in 2017 and European silver medallist last year, the 23-year-old Londoner has bold ambitions for 2019, with Linford Christie’s long-standing British record of 9.87 one of the targets in his sights.

Two world-class stars with 11 Olympic and world medals between them, Canada’s Andre De Grasse and Jamaican Yohan Blake, complete the additions to the field at this stage.

De Grasse is looking to return from a spell of hamstring issues and claim further global medals. A triple Olympic medallist in 2016 with silver in the 200m and bronze medals in the 100m and 4x100m relay, De Grasse’s appearance at this summer’s Müller Anniversary Games marks his first race in London.

Last but not least, and a man who is no stranger to the London Stadium having won three Olympic medals at the stadium back in 2012, Blake – the second-fastest man in history over 100m with a time of 9.69 seconds – joins the aforementioned trio in racing over 100m on Saturday 20 July.

The quartet’s confirmation follows the announcement of a red-hot women’s 100m field. British record-holder Dina Asher-Smith will take on Marie-Josée Ta Lou of the Ivory Coast, Elaine Thompson of Jamaica and Dafne Schippers of the Netherlands – a quartet who own a combined 18 Olympic and world medals.

Thompson is the reigning Olympic 100m and 200m champion and Schippers is a two-time world 200m champion, while Ta Lou was world No.1 at the distance in 2018.

Fresh from her exploits in Berlin last summer where she won European golds over 100m, 200m and 4x100m, Asher-Smith will relish the 100m challenge on July 21.

Founded in 2013 as a legacy to the unforgettable 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, the Müller Anniversary Games is a world-leading meeting.

It will be a showpiece occasion well worth watching in 2019 and ticket prices are set to encourage families. With the brilliant performances and a live band supporting athlete introductions, everything looks set for yet another thrilling occasion which showcases the world’s best and inspires the next generation.

Tickets for British Athletics’ 2019 outdoor season are now on general sale via theticketfactory.com/british-athletics

A five-a-side version of rugby can revolutionise the game at professional and grassroots levels, says Olympic gold medal-winning coach Ben Ryan.

The first 'Rugby X' event - featuring men and women - has been confirmed for 29 October at London's iconic 02 Arena.

The five-a-side format is described as "fast and furious", while retaining rugby's "core principles".

"It will bring new players and supporters into the sport," Ryan told BBC Sport.

"I see it as a really exciting variation on the game."

How will it work?

Ryan hopes 'Rugby X' could make the same impact T20 cricket has since its inception in 2003 - a shorter, more understandable version that will help attract a younger audience.

"That's the plan. If you look at 15s as being your five-day Test matches, and the one-day internationals being 7s, and Twenty20 being Rugby X; I can see that happening," he said.

"We are not clashing with 7s tournaments or 15s tournaments. I see it as a vital tool that can help the 7s."

'More like an NBA game'

Ryan, who is helping to drive the concept, is confident 'Rugby X' can be part of the solution to the sport's sustainability, rather than create another problem.

"It is going to be a little more like an NBA game, where in every moment of dead time, supporters are going to be entertained.

"I was [at the 02] when the Knicks were playing the Wizards [in the NBA], and it was a sell-out and was loud and noisy and amazing.

"There is going to be lights and music, and international Olympic athletes. It is just going to be a great event and a lot of fun.

"World Rugby has given us the green light for this test event and if things go well we would hope they would agree to expand the series."

The saviour of grassroots rugby?

Ryan feels 'Rugby X' could help save grassroots rugby union - especially in state schools.

"I do [see it dying], and I see it across the board," he added. "Extra-curricular sport is dying in state schools, especially in the inner cities.

"It is very hard - even if you are a mad keen rugby teacher working in an inner-city school - to start up rugby at the moment.

"15s is obviously technically difficult as a start-up, and 7s is just aerobically and anaerobically shattering.

"This gives a short-sided and simple version, where teachers with no background in rugby, in limited resources in limited space, can get the game going."

Ryan also hopes a physically demanding yet easily accessible game could help with some of society's more serious problems.

"It is a strand of the solution to what we are seeing going on as far as the increase in crime and knife-crime," he said.

"Give people something to do, give them an interest, give them playing a sport that espouses all the values around team work, and togetherness, and understanding, and mutual respect."

Better for player welfare

Ryan hopes 'Rugby X' will address issues over safety and player welfare that are threatening the viability of the 15-a-side game.

"We are working in a shorter space, so that is going to mean you won't get the collisions you get in 7s or 15s," he said.

"We've done our trials. There will be injuries - it is a contact sport - but the trials have been really positive. We are tweaking things as we go along, but ultimately it is going to be a sport that will support player welfare and reduce injury.

"Once people see this version of the game, they will want to come back. It is going to be accessible, it is not going to be expensive, in some of the best indoor arenas in the world.

"There is going to be a risk with any start-up, but we are pretty sure it is going to catch."